That’s a very interesting post you made, Curtis, and I can’t resist yet another reply. (Sorry, the rest of you). Yes, it is science – or at least my humble attempt at it – which equates more closely to “doubt” and nowhere near as close to “technical knowledge” as many people believe. You mentioned Apollo – there were no computers then, as we know them today, and probably more computing power in the cell phone in your pocket than there was then in the whole of Cape Canaveral. I was studying physics at secondary school around the time, during the “cold war” when the Russians stole a march on the Western world by being the first to launch an artificial satellite. This created such a panic in the US that school curricula were rapidly revised, and the ripples were felt as far away as New Zealand with the introduction of the first PSSC courses. This was explained to us at the time. The emphasis suddenly shifted away from rote learning of complex experiments carried out by “experts” in remote laboratories – to hands-on, real science, with make-shift, back-yard equipment. This sort of approach used to appeal to New Zealanders (not so much these days, I am afraid). We measured the size of a molecule using talcum powder and the diameter of a drop of oil spread on a puddle of water, and the wave-length of light (I forget how we did that). We studied the behaviour of waves directly, with simple ripple tanks – and remember those “ticker timers” for learning about dynamics? I wish I had one of those now, for the dinghy testing! It was an exciting time, and all too brief. I suppose I am trying to re-live my childhood – or perhaps entering into a second version of it!
I can’t do a drag test for DD until we get another spring tide up here on the mud bank, but I will see what I can do by trailing them in the river a little further downstream. In a miniature chop, if the conditions are favourable.
Some people will agree with you about the value of fore-and-aft buoyancy tanks – like the mandatory use of life jackets, it requires a compromise and doesn’t suit everyone. The PD (in your post) is primarily a sail boat rather than a tender and the side tanks don’t work so well with a little stem dinghy. The offset dagger board as part of a side tank is ingenious and used to good effect on David T’s narrow beam but very safe and easily driven creations. But while I wholeheartedly agree with your Boy Scout motto, I am giving brownie points to no-one. The motto here is “horses for courses”. I’m studying form, but I’m not placing bets.
PS The doubts expressed by David T, as to the relevance of all of this, is required reading. Stepping badly into a dinghy. Dumping your groceries on the side deck. Dealing with an unexpected partial flooding - these sorts of things are what good designers think about, and my little back yard tests barely delve into the myriad of problems that a designer has to solve. While I don't consider these experiments irrelevant, I do appeal to all, not to take the numbers too seriously, or to draw over-simplified conclusions.
Good you have stated your opinion, Curtis. The judging committee will want to know what sort of dinghy would suit most people.
I wonder which type of dinghy most people like best?