In another thread Toesupwa wrote:
The Springer shape is the reason it 'dives'. Yes, because it is an inverted wing shape.. plus the snow plow effect of the flat front doesnt help matters.
I've done several experiments with inverted 'winglets' under both the stern an the bow trying to stop the dive... and nothing seems to work. The only success i had was with a small wing underneath the bow, but even that only held off the inevitable dive... it went under at higher throttle.
I have not built a Springer but am going to do so. Whilst I understand the reasons for a common shape etc I was wondering whether there was a MkII Springer out there that would combine all the advantages of the MkI - ease of build, strength, price, easy handling size, cuteness, flexibility etc with better sailing characteristics that would extend the flexibility of the original hull design. It may of course be that the original is the optimum shape.
Has anybody tried any, or any combination of, the following & can thus report on what happened:
1. Making the bow narrower than the stern
2. Making the hull deeper at the bow ie increase the bow buoyancy & reduce the underwater airfoil shape.
3. Increasing the "lift" angle at the front of the hull so that increased speed tends to lift the hull more.
4. Adding a slight amount to the hull length & if so in which bit of the hull shape.
5. Making sure the propshaft is horizontal with the water line
6. Anything else!!!
As some of the above are the exact opposites of each other you can tell that I am not sure which, or combination of which, would improve matters & which would make them worse. If anybody knows please tell me.
Author
Topic: Is there a better MkII Springer? (Read 6935 times)