Hi Matt, answer to your questions : The boards will have to fit into square trunks (existing)with a shaped exit at the hull which currently fits the existing blade. I can re-shape that to a certain degree as my hulls are timber. Max thickness is 22mm, max length 1220mm, max width is 305mm but my trunks are 275mm front to back. My current boards are square, 270mm x 1020mm, so I could go longer although the Auzzies believe shorter is better, and puts less load on the boat & blades (they`re Obeche timber with 1 layer of glass-epoxy, very light & I stand on the tips to right the boat, so strong enough at current length.) I`d have to add a layer of cloth if I lengthened them. Areas I`ve calculated are below hull only. If you look at the attached drawing, I tried to come up with a design that could be rotated aft to get the c/e further back so I could carry more aft mast rake to compensate for lee-helm under spinnaker. Last weekend I raked the mast forward so i`ts now dead vertical, fast upwind & downwind, balanced rudders, very light leehelm downwind, so it seems I won`t need that anymore. The shape was an attempt to get more "high aspect" within current class rules, but as I said I`d lose 30% area, which according to Bill means I`d have to up-size the rudders. Looks like the best solution would be to get full-length boards with a rounded front edge to reduce tip vortices, maybe move max. thickness back a bit as per NLF section referred to in the Skiff article, and try it out. That way I`d gain surface area, not lose it. (current surface area = 0,159sqm, full length boards = 0,207sqm, new tapered design = 0,147sqm.) Any suggestions ?
