Glassdave, the forward ramp (water deflector) was already in the regulations. You can see the orange parts around the hatch in the Victory photos above. The addition was the two step flange where the arrows point.
But why is a two step flange better then a one step flange (when flange area is the same)?

looks like the ramps are molded in though, really think it should be an add on piece and completely shadow the rear width of the hatches opening. They have a regulation for a ramp similar to what i have described? Have not had a chance to look the pdf over yet. This photo shows virtually no shrouding of the rear of the hatch as well as several molded or cut in scoops, all i feel are a mistake. Any break in the continuity of the surface laminate is potential failure. I dont get the two step flange either but would like to hear the theory behind it.

That material selection needs looked at, the building processes used and the load calculations, all need reevaluated.

Glassdave, I think you are correct about the deflectors being moulded in.

Personally, I'm not to found of water deflectors. I worry abut the pressure zone when the are hit by water from the wrong direction. I.e. the rear deflector in a stuff or the front deflector in a flip.

I agree with the pressure zone, thats why i believe the rear deflector should be sacrificial and be able to shed itself off in the event of a forward hit. Maybe that pressure zone is the reasoning behind the double stepped flange?

"The deck/canopy itself should have the same integrity as the running surface" (Linder designs p.9) Actually most of what i am proposing is covered in the Linder guidlines in some form i believe. There are sections on raised lip around the hatch as well as rear shrouding i believe.

Maybe, I don't know?

Do you want the front deflector to be sacrificial to, in case of a flip?

well i guess thats a tough one. My thoughts are no because i believe that the pressure front will be minimized by the actual size of the corner but again looking at it that may be what the two step design does or at least focus the force into a closed corner and not at the lip of the hatch opening. Maybe there is a balance in size to restrict the force over the ramp as well as behind it? I suppose the sacrificial piece might work there as well. I do think the large rear deflector should be sacrificial. The other function of the ramp is as a canopy is going through a violent accident there is a component of flex in the structure. The lip should also be able to compensate for this and keep the path of the deflected water outside of the range of flex. (hope that makes sense)

It makes sense. I'm no sure I agree (no offence) but I think I understand what you mean.

What about moving the water deflector a few inches away from the hatch? To reduce the effect of the pressure zone?



Sorry about my paint skills...

That actually makes better sense then a sacrificial lip and placing it offset from the opening moves the pressure front to a safer point. Paint skills plenty good enough for our purposes here.

Thanks, glassdave. I'm glad you're able to understand my rubbish drawings.