[quote=MN3][quote=golfdad75]No i meant that a wing sail is more efficient and the bottom cannot be shaped. Now does it follow that a fixed foot is more efficient? I am just trying to keep the conversation lively.Edited by golfdad75 on Dec 18, 2010 - 07:15 AM. [/quote]
the questions were "What is the major purpose of these differences?
Does it make any difference in technical terms?
Is one rig better than the other?"
The reasons H16's come this way, is this is an old design, and not the most dynamic to fit in different wind ranges.
Modern design include the ability to change the shape of the sail at many different locations (luff, leach, out/downhaul, mast shape effecting sailshape along the mast axis to open or close the pocket, rotation limits or inducement, etc all to get the correct chord, depth, pocket shape, draft, etc)
ok to the wings: how many birds have wings that don't change shape at all? (none, they all can change the shape of their wing / sail depending on its needs).
Look at f-14 (jet), it has adjustable wings for different conditions (speeds). also modern testing in high end wing design include the ability to morph shape
[quote] the bottom cannot be shaped[/quote]
are you kidding me?
The main trim parameters are: master wing rotation (similar to mast rotation on a conventional rig); master camber control (general rotation of the flap element); flap twist control (each flap can have a specific angle of rotation).
[quote]Don't con a con man. What makes it simpler?[/quote]
it is a lower tech system, it has a simpler out haul, minimal downhaul, jib blocks on the beam, 2 way jib adjuster out of the way (beam), less lines, less fuss, shorter.. lighter mast, no boards, simpler rudder systems, no spinnaker, stock non collapsing tiller extension, simpler design (deck lids),[/quote]
