: On Zimmerly's website, mentioned in my original question, the drawing is
: shown in Adobe Acrobat's .pdf format. There is an enlargement tool
: available on the toolbar, and by using it the paddle cross sections can be
: blown up big enough to actually see. Still, the question seems to be
: unresolved. Also, what about the apparent offset of the plane of the blade
: from the plane of the loom? It seems to me that if the tip trailed the
: loom there would be less tendency to flutter. The center of effort would
: thus be ahead of the center of resistance. Also, if the ridge were on the
: power face, there would be a dihedral that would reduce flutter.

: If the paddle were reversed, and the plane of the blade were a continuation
: of the edge of the loom nearest the paddler, it seems as though that would
: be dynamically unstable, with the center of resistance ahead of the center
: of effort. Do your paddles have any such planar offset? Or have you ever
: used one like that? Maybe the Aleuts had a subtlety that has not yet
: appeared in the repro native paddle inventory.

The have been many euro/sport kayak paddles built with the blade fixed on the same plane as one side of the paddle loom with a spine running down the back of the blade.

No one seems to consider using the spine side of these paddles nor do they seem to experience any dynamic instability during their paddle stroke.

With a lack of guidance from ancient Aleuts we use their paddle design in what ever way that works for us. The fact that both blade surfaces work as power face makes no difference as long as we are having fun.

All the best,

Rob Macks
Laughing Loon CC&K
www.LaughingLoon.com