Quote:
Originally Posted by PMC
Smackdaddy,
I think I get where you are coming from, but I reckon you might be over thinking it a little.
Take the JSD page that deals with the loss of the Winston Churchill. The water moving down the face of a breaking wave can be travelling at 50kn+ (it needs to if it is to accelerate the boat to those sorts of speeds). This is inline with my own experience. It would be easy to assume that a boat restrained by a series drogue is at some point going to be sailing backwards through the water at what could only be described as a very high speed - much higher than that experienced with a sea anchor. But, what we have is two distinct layers of water: The fast moving surface water (often full of air but still of great energy) and the relatively static water underneath. There is probably a fairly distinct boundary between the two. Unless the boat has been picked up by the fast moving water, the rudder is going remain in the lower layer. It is the series drogue or sea anchor that ensures that the boat stays (mostly) planted in solid water.
FWIW, I use both, but most of what I read against sea anchors is just a load of bollocks...
Cheers
Peter |
Hey Peter - welcome to SN dude! And thanks for the clarification. The layers of water make a lot of sense. I see what you're saying. And I'm one that can definitely over-think - especially while on shore.
I also agree with the load of bollocks part (especially that one page on the JSD site) - but understand that most of it is marketing. So it's good to have an objective discussion about it - and especially to have input from guys like you that have been in heavy stuff.
Another sailor told me about a book that I've been looking for: 1994 Pacific Storm Survey by Kim Taylor. So far I haven't found it here in the US - but it apparently has a good survey of boats that used various techniques in the 1994 bomb around NZ I think it was. I look forward to reading that.
Thanks again.