The navigatorİ wrote:
- conveniently dropped the distinction between section & profile when
discussing aerodynamic shapes
I never used those terms so this a pure fabrication. This shows you
again to be a complete liar. You really are pathetic in your attempts to
dicredit me. So come on, post the evidence you liar.
Nope, sad to say, it is quite true. Not only that, you began the discussion about
lift/drag ratios and relative developed power in light air, and then claimed it was
more important to reduce heeling moment.
Now (drum roll please) the bare facts, from the Google archive
From: DSK )
Subject: Hey simple!
Newsgroups: alt.sailing.asa
Date: 2003-11-28 04:27:51 PST
The navigatorİ wrote:
I wonder if our disagreement arises because your theories are based on
ideas originating from the "eliptical wing" and a desire to make the
main adopt an eliptical shape as far as camber is concerned (by making
the top fuller)?
Huh?
AFAIK the elliptical wing is usually referred to profile, not section shape.
So, I can definitely say, no that's not it.
Increasing fullness also helps solve the roach support
problem -which is offset in modern sails with full length battens and
stiffer fabrics. Some sudies (e.g. here at Auckland) have shown this is
not correct for high aspect roachy mains where the camber (and lift)
should be reduced at the top of the sail to reduce heeling moment.
Hello? Why are you talking about 'reducing heeling moment' in light air?
In
the extreme case, negative (!) camber could improve performance by
reducing the heeling of the vessel..
Yes it could, but not in light air.
*** *** ***
There you have it folks. Yet another fine example of Navvieİ losing his grip on his
own malarkey and attempting to change the subject. Happens every time he tries to
discuss real sailing... check the record.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King