There has been, is , and will be only one word in the English language to accurately describe the structural component between the board and fuse.
In retrospect I've never understood this advice. There's nothing IMO that carries over except maybe the feel of the straps or deck pad. I don't think the board itself, thick or thin, makes any difference so long as it's not a wet noodle.Hugh2 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:18 pmI started on a larger thicker Slingshot board, and came to it completely comfortable on directionals, and this is the route I still recommend to others. We've had discussions here with folks asking can the go straight from TT to foil, and I'm sure some can, but still seems easier to me to master directional first.
All this and yet you refer to the part that the wings mount to as a “fuse”, which everyone knows is part of a bomb and not the central structural component of an aircraft.revhed wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:22 amThere has been, is , and will be only one word in the English language to accurately describe the structural component between the board and fuse.
See definitions, patents, well known designers, history.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/R ... 75897d480e
https://foils.org/hydrofoil-rudder-and- ... gn-issues/
https://books.google.fr/books/about/A_P ... edir_esc=y
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/199 ... 086039.pdf
I could go on and on....
I find it interesting that the english speaking world is adopting the French word "mat", must show how much influence it had years ago in the foil board world.
Most notable is that if one were to do ANY research into hydrofoils the word "mast" will just NEVER be found before this millenium!
Yet strut was and is the still correct word.
Looking for profile naca info?
http://airfoiltools.com/site/search?cx= ... 1j581969j5
Try searching mast....
But alas, many will continue to be ill informed.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests