Frank and Mr. Efficiency, the whole point of this is to force Michael to answer some basic questions, which have been asked before. The answers will prove, one way or the other if he has more then an arm chair understanding of the concepts, principles and dynamics involved in his broad paintings of various designs, designers or hydrodynamics in general. Again, he's failed.
I very familiar with the Ripalong style of hull and Billy wasn't attempting address anything thing other then the target speed with this hull form, for which he specifically shaped the hook or in this case attempted to, as he had much more success when he revised his hull shapes after what was learned just after WW II. Of course Michael would know this, particularly with my repeated references to the Navy's series 50 model tests.
My point is this hull is part of a general evolution in powerboat hull forms. This one is old folks, really old and full of issues. Is it a valid design? Of course. Is it efficient? Not even close, no matter how you measure it. Any true student of design can see the issues, as they're staring right back at you. This is the point of contention I have with Michael who attempts to present himself as one with considerably more understanding then he actually has. I've asked repeatedly for Michael's description of why this hull is a good one. Why is it efficient, why is it whatever, but he just babbles along as if not replying is an effective means to prove he has a clue about what he suggests.
The bottom line, just after WW II huge changes to powerboat shapes and power plant weights, immediately presented themselves to the industry. The Higgings and Elco PT models, the 50 series tests and several other era approaches brought research into high speed planning hulls, were being preformed. These studies are classic and well known, if confusing in presentation. Anyone that's studied, as Michael overly claims he has, would be aware of these tests and subsequent tests, all of which can be clearly seen displayed in the lines of power craft from that particular era. Any reasonably skill "student" of design can look at a set of hull lines and tell you, fairly accurately what era it was developed in. Michael can not and presents himself as someone that can. He can't see the power robbing, suction making shapes on Ripalong. He has no idea what Billy did to the the hook height, width or length, let along curvature to make it (this hull form) hit the target speed.
In other words, Michael speak what you know, which is clearly what you haven't been doing. I can dissect every post you make for they're filled with contradictions and fallacy.
Lets just look at your second Paragraph shall we;
The draketails, The simmons sea skiff..many atkins boats, the verity skiffs, the boston whaler and on and on.... are all designed to use hull form to go from displacment to plane rapidly without mechanically forcing the bow down with adjustable trim tabs .
Well here come the contradictions (surprised?). The draketails, the Simmons and darn near all of the Atkins powerboats use a hook, which is in direct contradiction to the last portion of this paragraph. Either you know what you're talking about or just blabbing. I don't even think you can recognize the difference between Billy's work or John's, even though there's a half a century between them.
