Select to expand quote
Imax1 said..
^^^
I get your drift , but I wouldn't think it's cheaper . Too late now . Will look into it next time .
Brain pick if I may .
I want to have basically the same outline profile only smaller , slightly sharper at the tip , cos it worked .
Thinking of keeping it fat 15 mm instead of 17 mm .???
Do you think I should have a sharper leading edge than a FF 24 . The fin above is FF 24 blunt . It's at 30 deg rake so I don't get any lift from the front edge or do I . ???
Ill keep the thickness profile the same as my first fin because it works so well .
Im not just chasing a bit more speed , but I need it to still have lift and grip for heavy me on a 74 wide board .
I will take your advice as gospel and if anything goes wrong , you owe me $ 116.50
Will you accept a cheque for $116.50? I promise it's in the mail.

My thoughts, which are worth slightly less than a cheque in the mail: Please remember my experiments have been with 50degrees plus rake, so my findings may not extrapolate to lesser rakes.
Outline - a double ellipse (eg Spitfire wing) is the most efficient shape, however, the necessity to get enough lifting surface in a small span can negate any gains here. Overall, anything you can do to reduce the tip vortex intensity and the concomitant drag is a good thing.
Thickness depends on root length. With wide base fins, as low as you don't go below 8% max chord thickness, you should have a good basis for benign handling. One or two per cent more will give more lift and a wider operating margin in turbulent flows. (grip). I don't know for sure, but I guess it's possible a higher aspect fin with less rake may be a little different?
Leading-edge lift - assuming you mean vortex lift generated on the leading edge, the amount of lift generated by this method will be very low. Lifting vortexes on the leading edge require a sharp leading edge and an angle of attack closer to 15-20 degrees. They are also unsteady flows in themselves and not suited to choppy conditions.
At thirty degrees rake, you will need a leading-edge radius to chord ratio of below 0.003 to generate a vortex of sufficient intensity. By its very nature of creating leading-edge separation, this sharp leading edge is not amenable to attached flow parallel to the foil and will lead to a fin that is unpredictable in its behaviour as it swaps between unsteady vortex lift and the standard pressure lift models. Theoretically, the sharpest you should go to ensure no vortex-like separation is a ratio of 0.007 of leading-edge radius to chord. In practice, I find 0.01 better. Eg a chord of 200mm has a leading-edge radius of 2mm/diameter of 4mm. As a general rule the wider the radius, the wider the tolerance of unsteady flow/turbulence causing sheet cavitation. The downside is an increase in drag ( but the efficient and usable portion of the AoA/drag bucket is wider) Swings and roundabouts...
Hope that helps mate, but please remember I have no formal training, just a keen interest, and so may be guilty of applying the wrong theory to the right scenario and vice versa. Now, where did I put my chequebook and quill?
Sent from my iCarrierPigeon