Hello otn,

I wasn't quite sure what you were driving at until I read your last
sentence and then it all became crystal clear. So the answer is "yes"
I would understand what you were saying and "yes" it would help me
understand the concept. But even though the term "thrust" is easy for
most people to understand, the concept of a "vector" (magnitude and
direction) may not be. But only you know who your target audience is,
and whether they would understand what a vector is. Hope this helps,

Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"


otnmbrd wrote in message hlink.net...
For years, on occasion, I've have been involved with teaching someone
boat handling, using single and/or twin screw inboards.
Naturally, (especially on twin screw+) the issue of rudder use arises (
from here we will consider this a twin screw+ discussion).
So that everyone knows, I am a STRONG proponent of rudder use, but I
understand many of the arguments against (G just don't agree with all
of them or feel the argument doesn't really address the issue).
In all of my discussions, I have had a problem with the term "steering",
as in "the boats moving too slow to steer with rudders", or "rudders are
not effective at these speeds".
At any rate, I knew I was never able to explain my point clearly and
concisely.
Recently, for some unknown reason, I remembered a TV show on jet
fighters which discussed (I believe) thrust vectoring, and it dawned on
me that this may be just the term to describe what I am trying to get
across to those I am teaching.
With this in mind, for those with twin screw boats, if I told you that
rudders were important tools of boat handling, but not to be considered
for steering, rather for "thrust vectoring", when maneuvering around a
dock, etc., when kicking an engine ahead, both positive and negative
...... would you understand what I was saying?

otn