Kenneth,
I differ on the opportunity. I think many if not most can benefit,
even the slow.
I can list the advantages and you can identify where I err.
(1) lower mast height, reduced CE
(2) Higher efficiency less heeling forces
(3) points significantly higher
(4) Hugely simpler to control with manual or automatic rudder angle
(5) Little or no maintenance, epoxy coat lasts at least 20 years
(6) No extra hardware, winches, ropes clutches, etc.
Disadvantages:
(1) Swing radius has to be addressed for dock/marina
(2) Cost (higher) until fabrication assembly methods improve.
(3) removal for storage or maintenance difficult on larger vessels.
(4) Light air starting, slower with reduced total sail/wing area.
So clever means minimize the disadvantages.... like cost due to
assembly and controlling weight while maintaining robustness.
Disadvantage (1) and (3) are insignificant for the smaller
performance boats. Light air starting is problematic. Competition
boats do it with flaps which adds, weight, cost, and complication.
That's where you have to balance all of it which has frustrated many
and places extremely serious competitors way out of the affordability
bracket. Of course the same applies to high tech sail material,
carbon rigs and such. Just where do you draw the line ?
Real fun can be made with less, just how to evaluate competitions
between rigs of all flavors (and cost).
JT
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Kenneth Hernemalm
<hernemalm@y...> wrote:
>
> "Wings for the masses"
> - I like that! Nice link - shadotec - too. thanks.
>
> About reaching satisfactory balance, I am thinking
> that the wing design might not have to be that much
> more clever than 'past experiments'.
>
> Why?
> Because leisure crafts, and even most racers, are
> mostly too heavy, too draggy to enjoy any significant
> advantage from a fixed wing rig, considering cost etc.
> But on a lightweight,low drag elementarry/modern
> pacific or atlantic proa, a rigid wing would really
> make a difference.
>
> At 10 knots Elementarry has probably only half the
> drag of a planing skiff having the same weight, hence
> it only needs half the sail area to achieve same
> speed. A cat or a tri, having the same weight would
> have less waterline length, also resulting in more
> drag.
>
> Half sail area/foil area means a lot to parameters
> like cost, weight, mass counterbalance etc.
>
> I think a fixed wing, designed to be cheap and
> sturdy,could do very nicely on Elementarry and be
> totally in the line of "Harry" thinking of reducing
> forces by reducing complexity.
>
> just my 2 cents ...
>
> /Kenneth
>
>
> --- jjtctaylor <jtaylor412@c...> skrev:
>
> > Kenneth,
> >
> > The novelty is making it work efficiently and safely
> > beyond a single
> > prototype design. Wings for the masses. That means
> > durability,
> > weight aloft, mass counterbalance, rudder response
> > and an assortment
> > of "other" details has kept wings out of the
> > mainstream for decades.
> >
>
> > There are engineered choices to be made, but
> > challenge remains cost,
> > weight, and robustness. So far none have reached a
> > satisfatcory
> > balance to go to market. Therefore the wing design
> > has to be clever
> > or better than past experiments.
>
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> Bästa hälsningar
>
> Kenneth Hernemalm
>
> om du vill ringa finns jag på 0701-593302 eller 031-552121
>
Yahoo! Groups Links