I've been discussing the rigid paravane system with anyone
that will listen since I saw David Katz's Diesel Duck. My logical mind
says that a rigid system would be more functional, because it works in
both directions, and easier to deploy and retrieve, and causes less
drag. I also believe a system could be designed that would be simpler
and easier to operate than David's. Hull # 1 462 has a conventional
system with a rope and chain supporting the fish. After watching this
system at work for a long time on our passage from HK to Subic, I began
to believe that when the rolling action of the boat put tension on the
chain, the fish would actually dive exerting a counter force that could
not be equaled on a rigid system. Unless, and this is a big unless, and
may require a fluid motion engineer to answer. Why couldn't a fish
attachment be designed to attach to a rigid pole that would cause the
fish to dive under tension and lift under compression?
Randal Johnson
I've been discussing the rigid paravane system with anyone
that will listen since I saw David Katz's Diesel Duck. My logical mind
says that a rigid system would be more functional, because it works in
both directions, and easier to deploy and retrieve, and causes less
drag. I also believe a system could be designed that would be simpler
and easier to operate than David's. Hull # 1 462 has a conventional
system with a rope and chain supporting the fish. After watching this
system at work for a long time on our passage from HK to Subic, I began
to believe that when the rolling action of the boat put tension on the
chain, the fish would actually dive exerting a counter force that could
not be equaled on a rigid system. Unless, and this is a big unless, and
may require a fluid motion engineer to answer. Why couldn't a fish
attachment be designed to attach to a rigid pole that would cause the
fish to dive under tension and lift under compression?
Randal Johnson
