The ply F16's can be build down to minimum weight as their hulls (combo of 3 mm and 4 mm ply) are respectively; Taipan F16 23.5 kg/hull, Blade F16 25.5 kg/hull. These will be competive BUT the newer glass laminate boat can arrive at the same minimum weight while being less strickt on the overall weight of the other components. In effect the laminate hulls are now being build lighter then the ply hulls, which is an achievement as it took Boyer about 10 years to make the glass Taipan hull as light as the ply ones. These F16 ply hulls does include a number of ply bulkheads and foam bulkheads (floatation). By luck, 4 mm ply is just right for the F16 hulls, so not much weight is lost there because of the standardized thicknesses of sheet ply.

But you have to work with alot of attention to details and weight, it takes effort to get this low.

The ply A-cats I know of used 3 mm ply over the whole hull and skimmed on the bulkheads. If I remember correctly these A's had only a bulkhead at the bridle, mainbeam, rearbeam and daggerboard well.

I estimate that these A-cat hulls couldn't be lighter then 16 kg per hull, probably they were slightly heavier in general, I guess just below 20 kg.

I did hear however that the bows would break-off if you put the boat into a pitchpole. Roughly speaking these lightweight ply A-cat hulls did get down so low by sacrifizing strength.

On my boat I rather not stand on the 3 mm thick parts. The difference between a 4 mm wall and 3 mm wall is noticeable. Luckily the section between the beams (and a little beyond) is 4 mm on the F16's. I have thrown this boat about pretty good and no failure as of yet (3 seasons and counting), so my hulls are strong enough.


On F16's between 50 and 60 kg is invested into parts other then the ply hulls (when not using carbon). Bill, how much is used in this respect on the A-cat ?

But again I seriously doubt if any ply A-cat building plan is producing a competitive hull anymore. The last ply plans were made early 90's I think (about mark 3 boyer A-cats) and would be very comparable to the Taipan hull shape but less tall, longer and less crossectional volume.

I hope this helps

Wouter