"Capt. Neal®" wrote:
A man doesn't disrespect his woman by revealing personal detail.
What I wrote was the truth, Mam, just the truth . . .

Okay, carry on...

As for me, I prefer what we share - the strongest tie of all - love, real
love.

Your professing your love for me on usenet? I'm flattered, I must say.

But I expected it to be a much more "personal thing". ;-)

LP (are you sure you aren't just trying to make Katysails jealous?)

Capt. Neal® wrote:
Funny how some people seem to think they can guess better than an engineer
can design.

Bwahahahahahah

Add that gem to the list of Nealisms. Makes Jax look positively erudite.

Rick

PUTZ!

"jetcap" wrote in message ...
Capt. Neal® wrote:
Funny how some people seem to think they can guess better than an engineer
can design.

Bwahahahahahah

Add that gem to the list of Nealisms. Makes Jax look positively erudite.

Rick

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Then notice the inefficient end plates that fail to take into account the
fact
that having them commence at the leading edge of the rudder is causing
more
drag then if they were placed toward the aft side of the keel.

It's a picture of the keel...... those are wings.

CM

Wings are on birds and airplanes.

On a sailboat keel those appendages are end plates. Just because
some stupid magazine writer calls them wings does not
make it so.

CN


"Overproof" wrote in message news:IMXwd.2822$nN6.143@edtnps84...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Then notice the inefficient end plates that fail to take into account the
fact
that having them commence at the leading edge of the rudder is causing
more
drag then if they were placed toward the aft side of the keel.

It's a picture of the keel...... those are wings.

CM

CN,

You've given some REALLY Supid reasoning but I guess we can blame the
source.

CN, take your own example; THE SHARK;--- You sound like you never seen
one! Their frontal profile is pointed. POINTED. Its mouth and teeth
aren't in the way

They come to a point, yes, a bulbous point. Look at your typical
submarine, dear sir, is there a point or a nice bulbous shape?
Look at most any jet airplane and note the nose does not come
to a point. Look at the space shuttle. Do you see any points there?

I suppose it's too much to ask that anyone here really understand
hydrodynamics but at least try. To get a fat object like a sailboat
through the water efficiently you've got to consider a couple of
things. One is wetted surface. You can have less wetted surface with
a bulb (a sphere is the shape with minimum surface area vs. volume)
than with some long drawn out point. That is a simple fact.

It follows with a ballast keel that a bulb is the most efficient
shape as far as hydrodynamics and containing the volume necessary
is concerned. You want the weight low because it's ballast. You
want hydrodynamic efficiency - you want a bulb for a cruiser.

Granted, a long, deep skinny keel is best for a racer but they are
not constrained by draft like a cruiser is. Do you own a racer or
a cruiser. Answer that question before you screw up a cruiser
chasing racer dreams.

CN


"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ...
CN,

You've given some REALLY Supid reasoning but I guess we can blame the
source.

CN, take your own example; THE SHARK;--- You sound like you never seen
one! Their frontal profile is pointed. POINTED. Its mouth and teeth
aren't in the way

Take a look at the AM Cup Racers.... do you see a bulbous nose on
any???....NO!

Do birds have really big heads.... no

Does a fine entry provide less friction... Yes!

CM


"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
They come to a point, yes, a bulbous point. Look at your typical
submarine, dear sir, is there a point or a nice bulbous shape?
Look at most any jet airplane and note the nose does not come
to a point. Look at the space shuttle. Do you see any points there?

I suppose it's too much to ask that anyone here really understand
hydrodynamics but at least try. To get a fat object like a sailboat
through the water efficiently you've got to consider a couple of
things. One is wetted surface. You can have less wetted surface with
a bulb (a sphere is the shape with minimum surface area vs. volume)
than with some long drawn out point. That is a simple fact.

It follows with a ballast keel that a bulb is the most efficient
shape as far as hydrodynamics and containing the volume necessary
is concerned. You want the weight low because it's ballast. You
want hydrodynamic efficiency - you want a bulb for a cruiser.

Granted, a long, deep skinny keel is best for a racer but they are
not constrained by draft like a cruiser is. Do you own a racer or
a cruiser. Answer that question before you screw up a cruiser
chasing racer dreams.

CN


"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
CN,

You've given some REALLY Supid reasoning but I guess we can blame the
source.

CN, take your own example; THE SHARK;--- You sound like you never seen
one! Their frontal profile is pointed. POINTED. Its mouth and teeth
aren't in the way

CN,

I do believe Bill Tripp designed and the Coranado is describe as a
RACER/CRUISER. Would you like to explain that to the Group?

Ole Thom

So CN,

Do you still think my Wing Keel is the silliest thing you've seen in a
while?

Do you understand its' function now?

Another question; Does a "Fine Entry" mean a clean, cut away Bow with
enough buoyance to slice through a chop cleanly and not pound on the
other side or as I understand you to say, a bow that rises on the wave
to stay dry? I think it is better to stay level rather than pounding. To
much forward buoyancy will produce a pounder. Do you agree?

I do have a Cruiser. Do you have a problem with a fast cruiser, with a
comfortable motion?

Ole Thom