Convert a Mono hull to a Tri?
Scott Vose
hull? I wonder if you could buy a old Hobie 16 or Hobie 18 and modify the
Macgregor to attach the Hobie hulls to each side. Removable for trailering
would be nice.
Would this work? Would the performance improve to something like a F24?
The reason I am thinking of this is that I have a old (1972) Venture ( a
Macgregor) in need of work. I think it might be fun to try out.
Scott Elde
Fraser Day
Anything is possible, but this is unlikely. The hull configuration was
designed as a displacement hull. My friend Marc the avid multihuller says
don't waste you time, money, blood sweat & tears. Mark says look for the
real thing.
Fraser on behalf Mad Marc the Multihuller.
Mark T. Parker
>Has anyone thought about converting a Macgregor 25 sail boat to a Tri
>hull? I wonder if you could buy a old Hobie 16 or Hobie 18 and modify the
>Macgregor to attach the Hobie hulls to each side. Removable for trailering
>would be nice.
>Would this work? Would the performance improve to something like a F24?
>The reason I am thinking of this is that I have a old (1972) Venture ( a
>Macgregor) in need of work. I think it might be fun to try out.
>Scott Elde
You certainly can use Hobie hulls as amas for a tri - that is exactly
whtat Dick Newick did with his original Tremolino. Of interest, it
appears he has switched from the Hobie 16 to the Hobie 18 - for why, I
know not.
The result of this venture, however, will depend on the origianal
monohull. I am unfamiliar with the MacGregor, but I assume it has
some type of allast to keep it upright (necessary in those monos). To
get any kind of decent performance, you literally need to "get the
lead out". Your new amas providing the righting moment so you don't
need ballast. You DO however still need a foil of some type in order
to go to windward - centerboard / daggerboard, etc. Depending on the
specifics on the MacGregor, these alterations could be totally
impossible or as easy as replacing a weighted centerboard with a light
weight one. Good luck and good sailing!
BTW - multi's are the only way to fly!
Mark T. Parker
73 Prospect Hill Pax vobiscum,
Hancock, NH 03449 frater mei.
(603)525-3438
Mike Franek
I have often wondered the same thing. While I don't currently own a
boat, I have considered shopping for an older mac, pulling off the
centerboard, building some light weight sponsons for hobie or custom
made foam sandwich outriggers and to keep it simple, just assemble
the stuff at water's edge. Farrier folding design is nice but a
much bigger job adding all strength required to hull.
Mike
: Has anyone thought about converting a Macgregor 25 sail boat to a Tri
Mike Franek
: the weight (which will make you go faster), you will still essentially
: have a hull that makes a big bow and stern wave, which makes the "hole"
: that monohulls can't get out of without planing.
: If yo ulook at a center hull of a trimaran, you will see that it is very
: narrow at the waterline, then it widens out for interior space. That
: narrow hull is the secret to its speed. A monohull needs the wider hull
: to get stability, which a cat or tri gets from the multiple hulls.
: --Eric
Am I confused then. I thought the "hole" was a function of the "wetted"
area, and it seemed to me that the flat-bottomed Macs would be essentially
as efficient as a triangular tri hull. Is the triangular shape their
to improve speed or to improve its ability to point into the wind? As
I said, I don't have a boat, so I'm asking.
Mike
: --
: | We have been put here on this earth | Eric Blumhagen |
: | to fart around, and don't let anyone | blum...@u.washington.edu |
: | tell you differently. | |
: | --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. | |
Eric Blumhagen
Mike Franek <fra...@cs.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
>Am I confused then. I thought the "hole" was a function of the "wetted"
>area, and it seemed to me that the flat-bottomed Macs would be essentially
>as efficient as a triangular tri hull. Is the triangular shape their
>to improve speed or to improve its ability to point into the wind? As
>I said, I don't have a boat, so I'm asking.
>
>Mike
>
please say so), speed can be limited by one of two factors: wavemaking
and frictional resistance. Wavemaking is a function of the beam-to-length
ratio, so a short, fat boat makes larger waves around itself (and
therefore a bigger "hole") than a long, narrow hull. Wavemaking
resistance tends to limits displacement monohulls. Adding more power to a
vessel limited by wavemaking resistance generally does not increase its
speed much, as the resistance function is exponential.
Frictional resistance, on the other hand, limits planing monohulls and
multihulls, and is a function of wetted surface, for the most part.
Nonfair sections of hull will increase the frictional resistance as well.
In general, adding more power to a boat limited by friction will increase
its speed linearly.
Multihulls do make bow and stern waves (as do planing monohulls), but
since the waves are small, they are cause less resistance. I think the
transition from a wave-limited boat to a friction-limited boat is a b:l
ratio of 1:6 or so. A planing monohull (or multihull, for that matter)
will pass its own bow wave, and is less affected by it.
So the short answer is that the triangular hull is there to reduce beam
and wetted surface. Since the Mac wouldn't have a reduced beam, it would
act mostly like a monohull, except that it wouldn't heel. You may be able
to get enough extra sail area from the improved stability to make it
plane, but I doubt it. Not to mention all of the structural problems you
might face by doing that.
--Eric
Ray Aldridge
>Has anyone thought about converting a Macgregor 25 sail boat to a Tri
>hull? I wonder if you could buy a old Hobie 16 or Hobie 18 and modify the
>Macgregor to attach the Hobie hulls to each side. Removable for trailering
>would be nice.
>Would this work? Would the performance improve to something like a F24?
This probably wouldn't work very well. If you got rid of the ballast
and put outriggers on the boat, you'd have a lighter boat with more
sail-carrying power, but the central hull would still be a monohull,
with its fat waterplane. Typically, fast tris have a waterline to
waterline-beam ratio of at least 8:1. Some of the early designs,
which weren't very fast, were as fat as 6:1, but most monohulls are
3:1 or worse. Too fat to be fast, unless they can plane.
Ray
Terry Schell;x3332
(snip)
>The main problem with the idea is that you're not solving the basic
>problem of monohulls: the length-to-beam ratio. Even if you do take out
>the weight (which will make you go faster), you will still essentially
>have a hull that makes a big bow and stern wave, which makes the "hole"
>that monohulls can't get out of without planing.
>If yo ulook at a center hull of a trimaran, you will see that it is very
>narrow at the waterline, then it widens out for interior space. That
>narrow hull is the secret to its speed. A monohull needs the wider hull
>to get stability, which a cat or tri gets from the multiple hulls.
>--Eric
Do you know of any evidence that the length-to-beam ratio is an
important variable in the ability of a boat to exceed its hull speed? I know
that the D:L ratio is extremely important - but I thought that
length-to-beam determined *low speed* performance (due to increased
surface area).
I think that this modification would make the boat faster. But it
would be quite a lot of work, and it could be very unsafe if the
size/shape of the outer hulls were not carefully thought out.
Just my opinion,
Terry
George R. Burns
looking at some available kits and plans, I am leaning towards the Cape
Charles 18.
I am interested in general opinions and comments concerning this kayak.
How does it paddle? How stable is it?
Also, if someone, who has built the boat, still has the plans, I would
be interested in buying/renting/copying them.
Thanks,
George Burns
grb...@ix.netcom.com
Wallace Venable
>: Has anyone thought about converting a Macgregor 25 sail boat to a Tri
>: Macgregor to attach the Hobie hulls to each side. Removable for trailering
>: would be nice.
>: Would this work?
I'm sure it could be made to work. The builder would probably get a
lot of self-satisfaction from completing the project, after a couple of
seasons of working out the bugs.
>: Would the performance improve to something like a F24?
Highly unlikely. Your Macgregor has a waterline beam of 6 to 8
feet. A small tri typically has a waterline beam of 1.5 to 2.5 feet. Your
new weight will probably be 3 or more times that of a good small tri.
Eric Blumhagen
Mike Franek <fra...@cs.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>Scott,
>
>I have often wondered the same thing. While I don't currently own a
>boat, I have considered shopping for an older mac, pulling off the
>centerboard, building some light weight sponsons for hobie or custom
>made foam sandwich outriggers and to keep it simple, just assemble
>the stuff at water's edge. Farrier folding design is nice but a
>much bigger job adding all strength required to hull.
>
>Mike
>
>: hull? I wonder if you could buy a old Hobie 16 or Hobie 18 and modify the
>: Macgregor to attach the Hobie hulls to each side. Removable for trailering
>: would be nice.
>
>: The reason I am thinking of this is that I have a old (1972) Venture ( a
>: Macgregor) in need of work. I think it might be fun to try out.
>
>: Scott Elde
The main problem with the idea is that you're not solving the basic
problem of monohulls: the length-to-beam ratio. Even if you do take out
the weight (which will make you go faster), you will still essentially
have a hull that makes a big bow and stern wave, which makes the "hole"
that monohulls can't get out of without planing.
If yo ulook at a center hull of a trimaran, you will see that it is very
narrow at the waterline, then it widens out for interior space. That
narrow hull is the secret to its speed. A monohull needs the wider hull
to get stability, which a cat or tri gets from the multiple hulls.
--Eric
Mike Percuoco
>Thanks,
>George Burns
>grb...@ix.netcom.com
Go for it. I built a Cape Charles 17 last summer. I really like the
boat. It is very fast, at least what I'm used to, and looks great
because I spent lots of time on the finish. Three coats of white epoxy
paint on the hull (Easypoxy) and 11 coats of Z-spar Captains varnish
on the deck. I also covered the entire hull with 5.5 ounce cloth set
in West System epoxy.
As far as the plans are concerned buy the book "The Kayak Shop",
written by the boats designer, Chris Kulczycki. You can build the boat
from the book the plans are in the book. And you can read a very good
step by step instruction with plenty of great pictures in the event
you have never built a boat before. Buy the book from the author, hell
he wrote the thing. You can reach them at Chesapeake Light Craft (410)
267-0137. I think I will scan some pictures of my boat and post them
here as jpg files so you can see what you can do with spare time,
simple hand tools, and the desire to build a boat that would cost near
$2000 for around $500.
Mike
Eric Blumhagen
Terry Schell;x3332 <sch...@condor.psych.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>In <4erkk2$d...@nntp4.u.washington.edu> blum...@u.washington.edu
>(Eric Blumhagen) writes:
>
>(snip)
>
>>problem of monohulls: the length-to-beam ratio. Even if you do take out
>>the weight (which will make you go faster), you will still essentially
>>have a hull that makes a big bow and stern wave, which makes the "hole"
>>that monohulls can't get out of without planing.
>
>>If yo ulook at a center hull of a trimaran, you will see that it is very
>>narrow at the waterline, then it widens out for interior space. That
>>narrow hull is the secret to its speed. A monohull needs the wider hull
>>to get stability, which a cat or tri gets from the multiple hulls.
>
>>--Eric
>
>important variable in the ability of a boat to exceed its hull speed? I know
>that the D:L ratio is extremely important - but I thought that
>length-to-beam determined *low speed* performance (due to increased
>surface area).
>
>I think that this modification would make the boat faster. But it
>would be quite a lot of work, and it could be very unsafe if the
>size/shape of the outer hulls were not carefully thought out.
>
>Just my opinion,
>Terry
>
In response to this post and your email, I don't have any hard sources
for saying that the B:L ratio is the most significant factor in
determining hull speed. I gathered that opinion from talking with people
on docks, reading back issues of _Multihulls Magazine_, and similar
sources. Not necessarily the most reliable of sources :).
Anyway, what I had heard/read said that wavemaking resistance was a
function of the B:L ratio, and that narrow hulls ended up having less
wavemaking resistance than fatter hulls, and the transition point between
frictional resistance and wavemaking resistance is at about a B:L of 1:6.
It could be that we are both right, too, since the D:L and B:L ratios are
probably pretty closely related for most hulls shapes.
However, I will stand by my previous point: the original poster is not
going to turn a Mac 25 into a F24 by adding Hobie hulls as pontoons. He
will probably go faster, and there may be large structural problems
either immediately or down the road a ways.
Matgarner
The B/L ratio is important in resistance, but another speed factor is the
righting moment or the ability to carry sail. A cat or tri has a high RM
inherent in its shape. Another speed factor is the prismatic coeff, which
I think also plays a role in wavemaking. The prismatic coeff. is
basically a measure of the fullness of the ends of a hull. cats usaully
have both low L/B ratios and high Cp, but OK.
Michael Storer
-> Date: 2 Feb 96 17:28:55 GMT
->
-> In <4erkk2$d...@nntp4.u.washington.edu> blum...@u.washington.edu (Eri
-> Blumhagen) writes:
->
-> (snip)
->
-> >The main problem with the idea is that you're not solving the basic
-> >problem of monohulls: the length-to-beam ratio. Even if you do take
-> >the weight (which will make you go faster), you will still
-> essentially >have a hull that makes a big bow and stern wave, which
-> makes the "hole" >that monohulls can't get out of without planing.
->
-> >If yo ulook at a center hull of a trimaran, you will see that it is
-> very >narrow at the waterline, then it widens out for interior
-> space. That
-> >narrow hull is the secret to its speed. A monohull needs the wider h
-> >to get stability, which a cat or tri gets from the multiple hulls.
->
-> >--Eric
->
-> Do you know of any evidence that the length-to-beam ratio is an
-> important variable in the ability of a boat to exceed its hull speed?
-> that the D:L ratio is extremely important - but I thought that
-> length-to-beam determined *low speed* performance (due to increased
-> surface area).
->
-> I think that this modification would make the boat faster. But it
-> would be quite a lot of work, and it could be very unsafe if the
-> size/shape of the outer hulls were not carefully thought out.
Having done a couple of plans for modifications of this sort, the major
thing to be aware of is the increase of loads on the boat's rig.
For example my design for drop in outriggers for a sailing canoe have a
hull volume of around 180 pounds a side. This is centred about 6feet
from the centreline of the main hull. The additional righting moment is
about the same as having 9 foot tall 180 pound fellow on trapeze.
Be aware that that the rig may need to be beefed up a bit.
---------------------------------------------
BBS Data Systems: ian.g...@rendez.com
61-2-663-2643 BBS 61-2-663-5420 Fax
---------------------------------------------
Michael Storer
-> "wetted"
-> >area, and it seemed to me that the flat-bottomed Macs would be essen
-> >as efficient as a triangular tri hull. Is the triangular shape thei
-> >to improve speed or to improve its ability to point into the wind?
-> >I said, I don't have a boat, so I'm asking.
-> >
-> >Mike
-> >
-> As I understand it (and if anyone else has knowledge on the subject,
-> please say so), speed can be limited by one of two factors: wavemakin
-> and frictional resistance. Wavemaking is a function of the beam-to-le
-> ratio, so a short, fat boat makes larger waves around itself (and
-> therefore a bigger "hole") than a long, narrow hull. Wavemaking
-> resistance tends to limits displacement monohulls. Adding more power
-> vessel limited by wavemaking resistance generally does not increase i
-> speed much, as the resistance function is exponential.
->
-> Frictional resistance, on the other hand, limits planing monohulls
-> and multihulls, and is a function of wetted surface, for the most
-> the transition from a wave-limited boat to a friction-limited boat
-> is a b:l ratio of 1:6 or so. A planing monohull (or multihull, for
-> that matter) will pass its own bow wave, and is less affected by it.
I agree with your everythign you have written except the para above.
As far as I am aware there is no magic beam to length ratio. A narrow
beam will reduce wavemaking as will a shallow depth as both affect
volume distribution.
Narrow beam is better at reducing drag in the sense we are talking about
here as the volume is moved away from the surface so has less effect on
the wavemaking - which is naturally a surface affect.
Also for a given speed of any hull the bow wave and stern wave will be
the same amount apart (from Froude). Once exceeding hull speed the bow
wave is still near the beginning of the waterline and the stern wave
will be behind the end of the waterline. A planing hull has no special
ability to "pass the bow wave" any boat of the same waterline, at the
same speed will have the same wave positions. Though the base position
of waves for the hull may be modified by volumes under the water surface
(bulb bows, keel, rudder)
Regards
Michael Storer
Wallace Venable
>Do you know of any evidence that the length-to-beam ratio is an
You generally can not take simple measures like beam/length and
project overall performance. Within any formula, there are assumptions
like "given similar hull shapes..."
Back in the '70's Edmond Bruce (a physicist by profession if my
memory is correct) did a lot of tank studies of hull forms which were
published by the Amateur Yacht Research Society. Within limits, his work
shows length-to-beam to be important. The book is several hundred pages
long, and is more expertly researched than expertly written, so I can not
summarize it here.
Of course, displacement-to-length is also important, but if you use
light displacement with wide beam, you get high wetted area, and "chine flow
effects."
No one becomes fully expert on hull hydrodynamics in a year or so.
It takes considerable study, even for someone trained in mathematical
science. (It might be argued that no one has yet mastered the area, even
with testing tank and computers at hand.) It appears that it has taken Phil
Bolger about sixty years just to get a really good grasp on sharpie hulls.
Don't look for instant enlightenment in a rec. newsgroup.
Wallace Venable
>>Am I confused then. I thought the "hole" was a function of the "wetted"
>>area, and it seemed to me that the flat-bottomed Macs would be essentially
>>as efficient as a triangular tri hull. Is the triangular shape their
>>to improve speed or to improve its ability to point into the wind? As
>>I said, I don't have a boat, so I'm asking.
I think ther is general agreement that "hole" is a function of
maximum cross section area. Wetted area relates to skin friction.
Some argue that multi's hulls should have semi-circular cross
sections for minimal wetted area, and many are built that way. Triangles
are use to:
1. Prevent leeway
2. Simplify plywood construction
3. ????
Terry Schell;x3332
(snip - mostly my previous post)
>Anyway, what I had heard/read said that wavemaking resistance was a
>function of the B:L ratio, and that narrow hulls ended up having less
> wavemaking resistance than fatter hulls, and the transition point between
>frictional resistance and wavemaking resistance is at about a B:L of 1:6.
>It could be that we are both right, too, since the D:L and B:L ratios are
>probably pretty closely related for most hulls shapes.
>However, I will stand by my previous point: the original poster is not
>going to turn a Mac 25 into a F24 by adding Hobie hulls as pontoons. He
>will probably go faster, and there may be large structural problems
>either immediately or down the road a ways.
>--Eric
I think I completely agree with you here. Most multihull folks seem
to believe that B:L determines wavemaking resistance, however, I think
that this is an error on their part. But because D:L and B:L are
typically highly correlated in the relatively thin hulls of a
multihull, this error is not usually important.
High B:L ratios will still hurt high speed performance, due to the
resulting increase in surface area. It will also make it harder to
get up to hull speed.
I agree that this modification will not result in a boat with F24
speed - and it will probably not be as safe as before the modification.
I would bet it would still be considerably faster than the stock Mac25.
Hell, if he has a beat up Mac25 it might be fun to make the
modification - just for the educational value. :-) Odd boats make our
waterways more fun.
Terry Schell
GregJ7
hulls and rig and a new water ballasted monohull (a Mac I think). He lives
in Redding California and plans a maiden voyage late this spring. I'll get
in touch with him for an update and report back soon.
-Greg
Mark T. Parker
>>Do you know of any evidence that the length-to-beam ratio is an
>>important variable in the ability of a boat to exceed its hull speed? I know
>>that the D:L ratio is extremely important - but I thought that
>>length-to-beam determined *low speed* performance (due to increased
>>surface area).
>>
>>I think that this modification would make the boat faster. But it
>>would be quite a lot of work, and it could be very unsafe if the
>>size/shape of the outer hulls were not carefully thought out.
>>
>>Just my opinion,
>>Terry
>>
>In response to this post and your email, I don't have any hard sources
>for saying that the B:L ratio is the most significant factor in
>determining hull speed. I gathered that opinion from talking with people
>on docks, reading back issues of _Multihulls Magazine_, and similar
>sources. Not necessarily the most reliable of sources :).
>Anyway, what I had heard/read said that wavemaking resistance was a
>function of the B:L ratio, and that narrow hulls ended up having less
> wavemaking resistance than fatter hulls, and the transition point between
>frictional resistance and wavemaking resistance is at about a B:L of 1:6.
>It could be that we are both right, too, since the D:L and B:L ratios are
>probably pretty closely related for most hulls shapes.
>However, I will stand by my previous point: the original poster is not
>going to turn a Mac 25 into a F24 by adding Hobie hulls as pontoons. He
>will probably go faster, and there may be large structural problems
>either immediately or down the road a ways.
>--Eric
See Need for Speed in this month's Sailing World. The fineness of a
hull changes the constant that determines hull speed. If you use the
formula 1.4*sqr(LWL) my Hobie 16 could never do the 16+ knots which it
easily attains
Mark Anderson
(Michael Storer) wrote:
> Also for a given speed of any hull the bow wave and stern wave will be
> the same amount apart (from Froude). Once exceeding hull speed the bow
> wave is still near the beginning of the waterline and the stern wave
> will be behind the end of the waterline. A planing hull has no special
> ability to "pass the bow wave" any boat of the same waterline, at the
> same speed will have the same wave positions. Though the base position
> of waves for the hull may be modified by volumes under the water surface
> (bulb bows, keel, rudder)
>
> Regards
>
> Michael Storer
>
For a given displacement, the high L/B boat will obviously be longer,
keeping draft constant (exclude fin). This will make a smaller wave to
climb over when it approaches hull speed which is higher due to the longer
LWL. Assume the same SA, and therefore the same SA/D, same power, if it
can stay upright. But it can't due to narrow beam. Therefore add amas to
regain lost stability, and then some. Some displacement shifts to amas so
center hull gets shorter (though longer than original displacement hull.)
For all boats resistance is combination of wetted surface and wave
making. Multihulls don't generally plane but they can assume usual
assumed S/L ratio of about 1.34 because wave making is so much less due to
high L/B.
--
Mark
"The trouble with good ideas is that they soon degenerate into a lot of hard work."
Paul Steinert /ADVISOR Liu
: In article <417912012-9...@rendez.com>, miks...@rendez.com
: (Michael Storer) wrote:
:
: > Also for a given speed of any hull the bow wave and stern wave will be
: > the same amount apart (from Froude). Once exceeding hull speed the bow
: > wave is still near the beginning of the waterline and the stern wave
: > will be behind the end of the waterline. A planing hull has no special
: > ability to "pass the bow wave" any boat of the same waterline, at the
: > same speed will have the same wave positions. Though the base position
: > of waves for the hull may be modified by volumes under the water surface
: > (bulb bows, keel, rudder)
: >
: > Regards
: >
: > Michael Storer
:
: Question, Are you planning on unbolting the keel or not?
: I've toyed with this idea because we have alot of broken
: up Hobie parts at the campus sailing club. I'm thinking
: a venture 22 with hobie 16 rig and amas would be interesting
: Imperical data ..............
: Perhaps there is an easier way? Can you add the vectors
: in the polar curve?
:
: assumed S/L ratio of about 1.34 because wave making is so much less due to
Paul Kamen
displacement, and wetted surface are unchanged. In fact, according to
one of the simplified linearized theories, wave resistance is
proportional to beam squared.
And there's an intuitive argument too: Consider a boat forced a bit
beyond "hull speed," going "uphill" into a bow wave. The retarding
force of the wave is (very roughly) proportional to waterplane area.
(The amplitude of the wave is also proportional to waterplane area, which
is how we get to the beam squared relationship.)
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/user/pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
krga...@gmail.com
> Has anyone thought about converting a Macgregor 25 sail boat to a Tri
> hull? I wonder if you could buy a old Hobie 16 or Hobie 18 and modify the
> Macgregor to attach the Hobie hulls to each side. Removable for trailering
> would be nice.
> Would this work? Would the performance improve to something like a F24?
>
> The reason I am thinking of this is that I have a old (1972) Venture ( a
>
> Scott Elde
Leave the daggerboard just the way it is. It extends over four feet into the water so you will get plenty of lift off of it while beating windward. Pull up the board for runs and reaching.
The actual design you will need is pretty important. Each ama probably needs to be over 100% of the boat's displacement for safety considerations. Digging in the lee ama in heavy wind is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. But, the physics of keeping its nose out of the water ain't all that tough.
You're going to need really good aka design though. Maybe fasten horizontal tabernacles that allow you to pull out the akas for transport on a trailer or traditional monohull sailing? I would not want to bore through the freeboard unless absolutely necessary. Check out the Corsair designs for some ideas. Now, if you lose the lee ama under sail you're gonna have a story that you will NEVER forget.
Sure, it's not going to be as fast as a production trimaran - but it would be one hell of a lot of fun to sail. I'll bet you that the main hull will plane quite easily on a broad reach.
brucein...@nowhere.org
in building Wharram Cats and like the Wharrams it was just tied
together. http://wharram.com/site/gallery A modification of this
scheme might work to hold the outboard hulls in place temporarily to
see how the design will work.
--
Cheers,
Bruce
swoop...@gmail.com
I want to bye a cheap yacht and add out riggers to hold gen in one, about 2 horse and batteries in other and make a hydroponic garden as fresh food is a yachting night mare, or sprouting cupboard.good on kirt.
