MAC.84\CF Rigger

Intlwaters

Help Support Intlwaters:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Mike,

Now that you have been running this boat for a while - I'm curious to know if your opinions have changed at all?

Also, do you think this design would work well with a strong 67 engine?

Tim.
 
I love this boat, I am going to build new front sponsons I don't like the flat bottoms. The new ones will have a belly. More traditional design. It would handle a .67 just fine with different front sponsons.

-MikeP
 
Thanks Ian,

Ya, it slaps the waves but it sure flyies light on glass.

-MikeP
 
Mike,

As a percentage of the afterplane do you know what the CG ended up? What do you think of the long flat rear sponsons, would shorter versions with 'belly' be better as well?

Ian.
 
Mike,

I'd be very keen to build one if that is cool with you?(and hammer?)

I'd be planning on using a 67 engine tho'.

Whatcha think?

Tim.
 
Just curious...has anyone tried a sponson design that has a good bit of dihedral at the front, then narrows and flattens out at the rear?

Would this make chop a bit more managable?
 
Ian

My cg is 80% of afterplane.

I do think bellys on the rear would be good.

It might upset the balance of the hull changing the front and not the rear in regaurds to how it skips over the waves.

Tim

It's ok with me.
 
PJ,

I haven't tried it, but I would guess it may tend to make the boat darty in rough water. I could be wrong. But the sort of thing you mention is like most mono hulls, and someone must have tried it, yet all the sponsons I have seen have constant dihedral!

Mike,

That would make it a 'forward CG' boat. Interesting! Although I am thinking that CG's in riggers are much less comparable for different designs than monos.

I was thinking a similar thing with belly on the sponsons.

Ian.
 
Back
Top