Firstfooty - “Brujo” has a ridged deck or cutwater that runs parallel just below the top rim of the box. The swing rig’s pivot point is at the apex of the cutwater. The mainboom has a bend in it that allows the rig to clear the edges of the box. My sail shape is not as radical as TMark’s because the rig is carried near the top of the box.
TMark - Yes, the Blue Sky Project inspired me to try angled placement with my new design but as a further development I also placed her diagonally in the box at the same time.
Brujo hasn’t been tested yet because I am still working out some construction issues. As a general policy though I don’t like to release details of a new design until it has proven to have potential. I have shared this pre-release view because this thread about BobAbout2 mentions the same placement concept incorporated in Brujo. Since I discussed the design brief with Brett some months ago I am not surprised to see that BobAbout2 makes use this sort of placement in the box. I haven’t seen this placement mentioned anywhere before this thread, so I think that a more comprehensive explanation of the advantages, and therefore the reasons for building Brujo would be helpful to all.
As most of the readers of this forum are probably aware, a lot of us who are design oriented are now making boats that are placed in the box on a diagonal. The reason is to gain extra waterline length. Now corner to corner placement pushes boats to adopt pointy ends to maximize the possible length. Brett’s “Comet”, loosely based on Roger Stollery’s “Roar Edge” M class boat, is one example of a Footy with a pointy stern. The most waterline length you can gain through diagonal placement is 13 3/16th inches (335 mm). But double-enders may not be the archetypal hull form for Footies, unless they are extremely narrow the hull has very curved lines. The only way to have that maximum waterline and retain a moderate transom is to angle the diagonally placed hull. I chose to angle my stern down, although the bow could have been angled down. Bow down has many disadvantages, both functionally and aesthetically with a reverse pitch of the bow.
Stern down has many upsides. Longer waterline plus regular transom but also provides for having an overhanging bow, putting reserve bouyancy ahead of the boat and allowing more deck width up forward without resorting to a blunt bow (vis-a-vie Dump Truck).
Practically, to get a regular transom into the box corner with this placement it needs to be raked to order move the transom’s top edge at deckline as far forward (and therefore away from the box sides) as possible. One change to Brujo that I’ve made since the photo was taken is to meld the transom into the deck as one smooth, continuous surface.
Brujo sports a fairly low bow which brings the hull up higher in the box. The low bow is a risk that I hope will be offset by the overhang (which increases her reserve bouyancy as mentioned before). I have also incorporated the cutwater deck. In the event that this boat should nose under the sharp deck ridge will prevent the water from piling up on the deck and should help her to recover more quickly. The cutwater deck is then a backup solution to diving which I also use to elevate the rig pivot to the top of the box. The trade-off is that Brujo sacrifices keel depth for increased waterline length and the smoother hull shape of a longer boat. This may become a problem with righting moment, but there is a school of thought in Footydom that holds that our maximum keel fins are part of the diving problem downwind and the high aspect stalls too easily. I guess that I will find out if all this give and take will mean anything.
In conclusion, Brujo is a concept boat that is on its way to sea trials soon. All the things that have gone into my thinking in developing this design are somewhat contingent on each other. If this boat is a success or a failure the hard part will be distinguishing what works well and what doesn’t. But then thats what makes this class interesting.