Scooby,

You said one thing right, I'm not an F16 class official anymore and so all I say is to be taken as a private person and F16 class member.

I have transferred all open issues (with up to date notes) to the new board and offered them my continued support in all area's upon their request. I have not received any request from the board in the situation regarding SCHRS. And now I'm sort of butting in to get things done. However I had to wait for a while for this to become defensable.

Furthermore all the times that I did try to reach the SCHRS committee (if one exists) failed miserably. So you guys would have received such a request if you were at all contactable during 2005 and early 2006. I'm sorry.




Of course only the current F16 Governing Council can endorse this proposal, not me, I'm just speaking on personal title. Were is the F16 GC on this topic anyway ?


With respect to 0.14 x 0.8 boards. These are just imaginary boards, they will not work well on a F16. The area is to small. Guys, a good rule of thumb is that the daggerboard area is roughly 90 % to 100 % of the total upwind sail area. A rule of thumb number 2 is that aspect ratios around 4 are the most efficient when taken over all conditions.

The 0.14 by 0.8 board does not satisfy these conditions.

If anybody was to ask me then I would say that SCHRS should use the most efficient board specs that is actually used on a F16 in real life instead of a mathematical (and unrealistic) optimal point.

Currently such a board is of the Stealth F16 : 0.188 x 0.75 All other F16 boards in currently use are less efficient.

That is most fair to all.

With respect to the counterexample you are giving in your post :

A daggerboard with 1 sq. mtr. area and only 0.25 mtr depth is far out rediculous. It would have to have a daggerboard well that is 4 mtrs wide to result in that area. That is not a daggerboard, that is a skeg.

Sorry Simon that counterexample is beyond ridiculous and I won't take it seriously.

But for the remainder all due respect

Wouter