You know, sports fans,
I am just sick and tired of all the innuendo and drivel that spouts out on this board and others regarding how I cheated the UIM rules by using a horizontal stabilizer on Spirit of Australia.
Mr.Mitchell seems to be the self appointed expert on what "Ken Warby knew with the help of Tom Fink "
and other little gems of wisdom.
Fact is, with all of these expert assumptions, he's talking through his arse.
The UIM rule refers to......."any device that tends to "LIFT" the boat by means of an aerodynamic effect"......
Pray tell, Mr.Mitchell, what device are you referring to since the tail plane on Spirit does not????????
Nor was it ever intended to.
Then there is...."the Fink designed stabilizer"......
Fact is the tail plane was designed by me before I had even met Prof. Fink at the University of NSW in Sydney.
The next little beauty is....."Appears to have a 2-3 degree positive incidence producing lift at the stern and resultant download on the front of the boat"......
WRONG again, my friend.
In fact this was the one area that Tom Fink and I disagreed on in the whole project.
However after some detailed explanation,he saw my point of view and finally agreed with my idea.
Now, for all you armchair experts that have never jammed your butts in a really fast boat.......look and learn !!!!
Look at photos and videos of Bluebird at speed and you will see the rear shoe bouncing up and down (tramping) and the resultant uneven rooster tail height shows it.
Then do similar with Spirit of Australia and what do you see.....an even spray height and NO rear bounce. "Gee,I wonder why?????"
2-3 degree lift at the stern at very high speed will result in the wetted area, of the sponson, moving too far forward and will cause the bow to steer the boat.
An even worse situation would arise if the rudder, which only penetrates 8" into the water at speed, bounced clear on the chop that I preferred to run on losing all steering. Result....an "ohhhhh sheeeeeeeet" moment.
A NEGATIVE incidence, producing an opposing (damping) force to the lift (and bounce on the chop) of the rear planning shoe.
Any "LIFT" that the boat required was easily obtained by the shape of the shoe and the location of the center of gravity.
You might like to know that before the tail plane was installed, a phone call was made, by me, to UIM headquarters and it was given the "All Clear".
and the UIM and I lived happily ever after. The tail plane angle is EXACTLY the same (and permanent) on Spirit of Australia and Aussie spirit and any of
you experts that want to check that out...come visit my workshop.
Tom Fink did help me figure out the angle needed for the job and he did do all the design on the intakes as well as wind tunnel the hull shape.
Tom Fink also stated, after seeing Spirit run, he believed that had Bluebird installed a tail plane with positive angle, it would have increased the rear vertical oscillation and made the boat more dangerous.
Tom and I had a wonderful relationship, with he approaching problems from a mainly theoretical angle and I from a racing one and it worked well.
You see, sports fans, sometimes things are not always what you think.
A wise man once said "You can follow the mob or think outside the box."
It is your choice as to which way you figure I went.
Have a nice day..