125 gr ballast
60 gr batteries (lithium)
333 gr all in
33 cm length at hull
54 cm masthead height
22 cm draught
McCormick Rig - 1025 sq/cm sa
Seatrials … shifting breeze with everything from irons to hard gusts … BlueSky proved tender and overcanvassed … proto rig sucked … while it worked in light winds it should be reduced for all else … building a decent rig with decent sail plan is the obvious next step … bouancy should be built into forward sheers and perhaps a bit more forward belly thus adding 50 grams discplacement which should then be put back into the ballast …
thanks Nigel … for those who don’t know, Nigel did the layup and deserves credit for a first-class job … likewise rig and sheets are riffed from Brett’s pics awhile back (simple no fuss) …
hull access is via a doctored plastic jar … it’s totally waterproof and 4 gms all in …
foils work fine … the only reason I can see for making one’s own is to save 20 bucks … I’d like to hear Brett’s comments on his own rudders which seem a touch bigger …
hull shape comes from efforts to make a “good-looking” boat styled initially on skiff and then sports boat lines (there may be some who still remember my first comment on this forum … “footys are ugly” or some such something … no-one was rude enough to tell me to put up or shut up but the inference was taken none-the-less) …
in any event, BlueSky sails and apart from being a touch tender works as well as can be expected given her pizza-pie hull-shape …
I’m going to leave her with an experienced sailor (who incidentally got hooked the instant bluesky got her feet wet) and we’ll see how he does around the cans by the end of the summer … maybe in conjunction with the C-Class boys at RCYC (Dick?) …
Hey Trevor - very good job, pretty hull on the water. And coupled with an interesting appraisal. One of the guidelines that I try to stick by in developing a new design is to change one thing at a time so that I know if the alteration makes a difference. If you change more than one thing at a time then you can’t objectively weigh which change made an improvement or set you back.
Sail shape contributes to tenderness, and I would probably start there. Although the idea of carrying a lot of sail aloft with the “windsurfer” chopped head profile on your unirig is a good one I think you have pushed it too far. I would try a more conventional shape first; a few variations with less area up high, a longer foot, a generally triangular shape without reducing the overall area initially. I understand that the way Blue Sky fits into the measurement box drives the aft foot shape, but once it is over the box edge you can extend it as far aft as you like.
If you can’t improve her sail carrying with a different sail profile then she needs more displacement. Light is desirable but has to be balanced with the all around performance of the hull shape in a wide variety of conditions, and in the hostile environment of the fleet race. Perhaps Blue Sky was conceived of as a one condition Internet Course racer.
Try to resist changing more than one thing at a time. She’s a good start in an innovative direction. More power to yah!
Points taken Niel …the original plan was to have identical platforms to test changes against … even with one hull, it remains a basic requisite that all changes be made in isolation of any other … rig testing first
… as for forward bouayancy, it was a concern right from the beginning and I let appearance win over common sense … bluesky goes bow down far more easily than I’d prefer, rig issues aside … building in some flair and a bit paunchier bow should bring me around to where I should have started in the first place … her sport boat appearance needn’t be affected … the question I’d have for all who have gone down this road, is how bouyant … ?
Try rebalancing the hull by moving the lead bulb forward so that you can carry the battery aft by the transom. When the bow goes down the Center of Bouyancy moves forward, aft battery placement will provide more leverage against the sail’s downward force. It probably won’t be enough to correct the problem completely (less sail area aloft would help), but you might get a bit more control this way.
Also, try sailing on broad reaches instead dead downwind. The hull speeds are higher and the downward pressure is absorbed by the forward quarter.
This spring’s iteration, two Blue Skies have gone black …
350 gms all up
175 gm ballast
McRigs as shown
Poor buggers won’t be splashed for two weeks … until then they’re relegated to reaching across the desk, into a pinch past the keyboard and a downwind run to the filing cabinets. So far a string of DNFs for both boats, hmm.
Yeah, the July Internet Postal is the objective. I’ve got 4 days over the Canadian July long weekend set aside in Lake of Bays to tune the Black Watch Blue Skies against each other. With good luck, big dollops of Upper Canadian Self Discipline and a hopeful reliance on Teutonic Genetics I’ll sidestep the traditional too much beer too much sleep not enough sailing trap and get decent rigs sorted.
Then I’m coming out to see you and that lagoon, Nigel. The objective is what? A sub 5 minute course time for 5 laps, meaning 3 minutes for 3 laps. We’re going to have to find somebody to blow hard.
What are the current Lajabless displacements by the way?
And hey Graham, my syndicate challenges your syndicate to 3 laps around the kitchen … start line at betwixt the front burners, windward mark at the fridge.
Your skiffs look the business - How are they performing?
I have now seen Nigel’s workmanship in the flesh (awesome), and seen that (in some conditions) there was no boat that accelerated faster than Charlie Mann’s Lajabless.
Pants/BLX by no means forgotten!
Occasionally while reading impassioned rule-rants I have wondered why one or more ranters do not make a footy with four AAAAAA cells, a metre deep fin; depleted uranium bulb and a myriad of sails and show the world the improvement.
If it were to happen I would term this changes-by-suck, rather than the present changes-by-blow
Hi Trevor - I was looking at your black beauties again and something caught my eye. Do those pretty rigs work with Blue Sky’s angled placement in the box? They seem rather conventional compared to the original rig your design sported.
You’re right Neil, the foot needs reconfigured … simple matter of bending and sliding on a new boom (aluminum tube) and scissors work … the bigger problem is that the bulbs are 1cm too far back and as a consequence the noses of the two Blue Skies you see in the most recent pics nudge out of the box (they fit if I squish them really hard … hmmm, is squishig permitted?) … Nigel tells me he has more parts waiting, so rather than muck around with finished boats, the next ones will be measured properly … (much swearing and so on and so on) …
<<they fit if I squish them really hard … hmmm, is squishig permitted?>> Lordy, no!. But “elastic persuasion” would be Ok, perhaps:D
You aren’t by any chance trialling my dessicated footy concept which fits in the box when dehydrated; and achieves Marbleheadhood when put in the water? I have to say it would look silly with the 12" rig, but just think of the sail chord possible!
andrew
