Cav, I have to 'give it up'? You erroneously made the bald suggestion that double-enders have increased reserve bounyancy that is cut-off on boats with a transom; I merely pointed out that as your boat (a Prout, which is the topic of this thread afterall) has no rear overhangs, this is not even arguably true.
Yes, Wharrams have some rear overhang and therefore implicit in my statement is that one could at least argue about the increase in bouyancy as water
rises up on the hulls from astern. Of course, the increase in bouyancy due to the overhangs would be much more gradual than the increase in bouyancy that occurs when a boat with U-shaped hulls aft and an elevated transom suddenly has the transom immersed in water!
I am not sure why you are talking about flying bridges, but we can agree that Prouts certainly don't have them (nor, I suspect, would any of the other cats that the OP would be considering in a similar price
I think that we can also agree that V (or 'modified' V shapes) are appropriate for the amas on a trimaran
. Of course, the amas on a trimaran
do not serve the same function as the hulls on a catamaran
: they are intended to reduce heeling, reduce side-slip and in some cases, to provide lift
. They are not typically intended to carry load or weight apart from that induced on the leeward side by heeling forces.
Remember, I am not 'anti-Prout'. I have already expressed the opinion in post 43 that early Prouts are excellent sea boats. In the same post I also extolled the virtues of the low freeboard, Ce for the sailplan and Cg of the hull
. I even commended the 'Prout', or cutter
rig for a cruising cat. Where we differ on the question of the early Prouts is with respect to the efficacy of their double-ended hulls. I think we have just about beaten that topic to death and others can read our respective arguments and, if they so choose, do some additional research
on such things as bouyancy, hobby-horsing, wetted surface, prismatic coefficient and the load carrying ability of modified V shaped, double-ended hulls versus U-shaped hulls with transoms.
PS Just so that my silence is not taken as tacit approval, I suspect that we also differ on the beneifts of the solid foredeck, low bridgedeck clearance and extremely low, central pods for a single diesel
on some Prouts, but we can leave that for another day. Thanks for the spirited debate!