LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
The_navigatorİ
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doug S. KING the liar

Still working on it aren't you? If anyone rereads the posts they will
see that I was offering YOU a way of explaing YOUR ideas. Hence the
elliptical wing which I did not discuss.

But the real point is that you try to besmirch me yet again by saying
that I "conveniently dropped the distinction between section & profile
when discussing aerodynamic shapes" which is plainly a lie. There was no
convenience about it. You did not pick up and discuss elipitical
theories anyway. Furthermore I certainly did not use the terms "section
and profile" -as i said. So try to twist as you want but but you are
still a liar.

C'mon why don't you threaten me again with a hiding? Why not come here
and deliver it in person?

Cheers MC


DSK wrote:


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


 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seaworthiness of Mac26 Parallax Cruising 57 May 30th 04 07:34 PM
Best 34 foot blue water cruiser Bob Whitaker Cruising 246 April 7th 04 04:10 AM
Seaworthiness Peter Ward Boat Building 23 November 13th 03 05:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017