More Aeromodeller converts

Thanks Gary,

Not much work done on the boat today. Unfortunately we have a couple of weeks with lots of commitments so we’ll have to see how we go. The radio gear is tidied up. All that is needed is the bulb and a hatch cover. Had originally intended to go with plastic and tape but are having second thoughts. Keeping the water out is a worry.

Also very impressive quality work on your keel and mast mounts. It would take some of the worry out of the design process if you could move things afterwards.

Not sure about local competition. We read a post regarding difficulties with even registering boats in Oz. The closest Footy people appear to be in NZ.

Importantly the design is now named - Hop2it.

Regards
Peter & Clare

Me too, I’m an aeromodeller:D

I’m not converted, I’ve just ADDED Footie addiction to my long list of model addictions…

and this is my very first attemp to build a footie:

Hi Luca,

This is actually a much better description of us as well. We haven’t stopped aeromodelling. As you say just added another modelling activity.
Your boat looks good. Is it your own design?

Regards
Peter & Clare

Hi All,

The Hop2it is finished. The bulb was added (weighed 242g) & the overall finished weight of the Footy ready to sail is 438g.

We did a quick flotation test in the backyard - see attached pics. The water line is pretty much as designed.

Regards
Peter & Clare

Hi All,

Couldn’t wait to work out a hatch cover, just grabbed the boat after work today and went to the lake. Mylar and electrical tape cover only. Sailed OK. Seemed to remember a bit about sailing and at least got it back to the wharf. You don’t need much of the lake as you can’t see it after a short length of time. 1/2 hour sail, so no time to really tune anything.
You would think we deliberately designed it to be a submarine down wind instead of the opposite. It does go though. The chopper foils seemed to work well.

Regards
Peter & Clare

Hi to Peter and Clare, a top notch building job and a pretty boat.

For your next version I would add another centimeter of freeboard from stem to stern to help keep the deck out of the water as much as possible when she is heeled. I also think that the sheeting system should be rerouted. I would be nervous about having a hole in the foredeck on any Footy, I think you’ve noticed their tendency to sail nose under a lot of the time. On Tanto the sheet exit is through the transom and is routed over deck to a fairlead on the foredeck and then to the boom forward of the mast pivot. Tanto has sailed in very rough conditions and so far has stayed bone dry inside.

well, it’s mine, but it’s not exactly a design… :wink:
I’m unable to draw anithing, I’m used to develope and build airplanes without any drawings; I sketch what I need (i.e., an airfoil, a rib, or something) straight on the media, Balsa wood in this case. And when the boat, plane or everithing is finished, if it works great I draw out the project to share with other guys; but I can draw just when the real thing is done, otherwise I will stay in front of the white sheet with no ideas at all. I’m a craftsman, definitively NOT an architect:p

really a nice boat!:zbeer:

Hi All,

Yes Niel you are correct. After the first 1/2 hour sailing there was around 2 to 3 ml of water in the forward section of the hull. We just didn’t think this through. It appeared from the pics on-line that this is what people were doing. See pics of the new setup. Even though the submarining is much talked about on-line it isn’t the same as seeing it yourself.

After the first outing we went back to Gary’s original advice and trimmed the weight down to 400g. This was done by reducing the bulb weight from 242g to 194g. Also the c of g was moved aft to raise the bow. This would have given a sailing displacement of 390g however we discovered that the HS85 servo used on the main sheets had stripped a gear. Interesting!! One outing of only 1/2 an hour. Testing proved that basically it didn’t like being stalled. It doesn’t that much force at the sail to stall the servo. The only other suitable servo we had lying around was a very old early generation mid size coreless servo. A JR NES3001. It had never been of any use in planes as the pot wore very quickly and it didn’t hold centre. We had nothing else suitable so in it went. New weight 402g.

We sailed it again today until the transmitter battery went flat. Nearly 2 hours. Great fun!! No water inside at all. Still possible to submarine down wind, see pics but much better. More freeboard would be good.

Actually seeing the submarining is interesting. What are the theories regarding the reasons for this tendency? Apart from the obvious physics, it looks more like the boat trips up rather than being pushed. ie the issue is bulb and keel drag.

Regards
Peter & Clare

Re Servo & stripped gears, I think Hitek shoud not sell a servo where it has the torque to strip its own gears. Poor design in my book. I use HS-81’s and stripped 2 of them and a lot of friends have done the same. Definately buy and install metal gears in your 81’s. Next time buy servo such as HS-82MG. It is less cost in long term.

Re Ballast Drag - I have seen recommendations to tilt ballast upward toward the front a few degrees. Maybe someone has recommendations as to best angle.

Re Bulb Shape - I have been making ballasts that come to a point on both ends and and tend to be long and narrow. I also see a lot of blunt fronts with tapered tails, sort of standard fishing weight shape.

When bow points down, a long ballast would appear to present more drag. What is the best length to diameter ratio?

Maybe we can get some comments on thsi from one of the Naval Designers such as Flavio…

Your posts have generated some good discussion which can be helpful to both newer and older skippers. Keep it up.

On larger, man-carrying vessels, boats with plumb bows have a reputation for burying the bow, also too much sail, in addition to the deep keel & bulb reasons you cited.

Regards,
Bill

I tilt the bulb of my IOM up in the front for the same reasons. 1.5 to 2.5* is the generally accepted range. The longer the bulb, the more reason to cant the front up!

Hi All,

Interesting questions regarding the bulb.
We did actually try to fix the bulb with 1 to 2 degrees up at the front end however once the boat pitches forward (greater than 2 degrees) this would end up being a negative angle of attack. In one of Gary’s posts it appears that he is suggesting to trim the boat well stern down to allow for the pitch forward to make the water line correct when underway. Does anyone else do this?

Niel, the pictures of Tanto in other threads look good. What is the secret of your excellent looking sails? Are they actually panelled?

Frank, thanks for the tip re metal gears in HiTech servos. We have mainly only ever used JR servos so don’t know much about HiTech. On the HiTech site there is a HS-85MG (metal gear) so we might try and get a set of metal gears and see if they fit in the HS-85BB+.

Bill, we actually sailed a 14 foot plumb bowed skiff-like dingy (NS14). The usual practice of raising the dagger board and moving as far aft as possible did the trick down wind. With no experience of model yachts the real question for us is: is the footy worse than other model classes? From the posts we assume so. If so is it only the plumb bow versions? It doesn’t seem a good proposition to sacrifice water line length for a swept bow. We guess this is where the diagonally placed hulls come in. We didn’t feel confident to design one of these as it looks difficult to do without basically making the whole boat first and then trying to fit it in the box. Also the rule “Racing trim means that all components of the boat must be installed and be capable of the full motion used while racing without being restricted by any part of the measurement box” appears difficult to interpret. Does the rig have to be able to swing its entire movement? Does the rudder have to move? Even with the conventional placement with a rudder protruding through the slot it seems impossible for it to move. 3D modelling of the design is an option. Doing the modelling for the box and hull is ok but the rig is a bit of a question especially with the movement.

Regards
Peter & Clare

Hi Peter and Clare,

Nosediving or sailing with a nose down attitude is a model yacht trait, it is just magnified in the Footy to an extreme because Footies are,… well extreme. It is just a function of leverage and the scale effect (compared to their full size sisters Footies sail in honey and gale force winds). I have concluded that there is not much one can do to resist diving so I have been pursuing design ideas to just let the boat do what it will. With practice (and a high bow and freeboard) a skipper can minimize the handling problems associated with downwind sailing, along with the choice of the correct rig for the conditions. (see the articles section on the Official Footy Website for my discussion of different hull-in-box placements).

And yes, my sails are paneled. Although a lot of homebuilders use a plain sail and force the camber (if any) into the sail by curving the sail’s leading edge against a straight mast these sails do not have the best shape for sailing upwind. It seems that twist off is easily mistaken for camber, they are not the same thing. With paneled sails one can control twist with leach tension and the camber that is cut into the sail (or airfoil section) can be varied with outhaul and downhaul adjustments. Now I have not yet tried to cut sails like Ian’s, using a large pocket to create an airfoil section, but his method looks promising. We’ll have to see.

As far a winch servo, you need to look for one that has a +50 oz./inch torque rating. I have used Bluebird 380MG servos the last couple of seasons. One did fail, but on inspection there was a small crack in the housing. I have now switched to the Bluebird 380MAX which has a higher torque rating for about the same gram weight. GWS and Raiden are two other companies (among many) that make servos with high torque ratings.

I also now employ a brake line for my rig. My winch servo failed when it was trying to hold the sail position on a run in high wind/gusty conditions. I now have my servo let out a bit more sheet than I need for the “all out” run and use a separate line from the deck to hold the correct position, thus taking the strain off the winch.

For a competitive boat, choosing and matching your electronics for performance and weight is important and can be confusing. Internet searches can turn up all sorts of intriguing components and the only way to know if they are appropriate for your boat is to try them or search the various r/c boat websites for commentary. For example, it is self defeating to use the lightest weight battery you can find coupled with servos that you have just lying around that are too heavy and underpowered. The weight loss provided by the battery is eaten up by the weight gain of the servo, giving you no advantage.

One strategy would be to use a removable r/c tray system with all your electronics aboard. You could have one board with a winch servo with lower torque for light winds and swap in a different (heavier/higher torque) one when the conditions warrant.

Keel depth and canting a bulb nose up are all topics that have been discussed at length on this forum. There are no concrete answers to the best way to set up a Footy, and that is what makes messing around with these little boats fun. It is pretty much impossible to design solutions to the vastly different pitch attitudes that these boats take sailing in just one direction, much less upwind, downwind, and reaches. Everything that one builds into their boat involves tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs are influenced by the particular environment that the designer sails in.

For example, for sailing in a location that experiences a short, steep chop one might opt for a shorter than maximum keel depth to reduce the tendency to hobbyhorse. This would not be helpful in a location that experiences wind that is higher off the water where a tall rig is the required, and hence a maximum depth keel for maximum righting moment. If a location has both these conditions then,… That is what makes it a boat race.

These boats, because of their size, are more prone to be influenced by different environmental factors like wind gradient and shear, as well as current and waves than the larger classes of r/c sailboats. And right now this class is still in its infancy so no one can really be deemed an expert. But if the spirit of cooperation that is key to the quick growth of the class so far prevails, and all of you out there reading these posts keep contributing your experiences and insights then the class and these little boats will continue to evolve in the most exciting ways.

Hi All,

First attempt at a panelled sail completed today.
10% camber 40% back from the LE at the foot.
15% camber 40% back from the LE 40% up the sail from the foot.
10% camber 40% back from the LE near the top.
25% geometric twist or washout.
Brett mentioned 15 - 18% camber somewhere, everything else is a guess.
Weight 9.1g compared to 7.5g for the original.
Yet to be tried.

Regards
Peter & Clare

We only sailed the green panelled sail once on a calm day. Although the ripstop nylon had been OK with the single piece sail, with the two layers and the double sided tape at the seams the new sail was difficult to set particularly in the light wind. The double sided tape we were using was 7.5mm wide which was actually 1/2 of some 15mm wide tape we had for another project. The conclusion was that it was too wide and too thick. Also due to not saving a change in the design the sail ended up with 5% camber at the foot not the intended 10%. This gave a transition from 5% to 15% on one seam. The result was that the sail set more easily one way compared to the other.

Solutions so far:
1/ Made new sail templates with the correct camber.
2/ Sourced new 6mm wide light weight permanent double sided tape used in making window furnishings.
3/ Sourced some drafting mylar to use as sail material. Our first source could only supply 3 thou thick mylar. We made a sail but it would require a gale force wind to set the sail when changing tack and it weighed 15.5g. Our second source was 26 micron (1.5 thou) mylar which made a 6.5g sail the lightest yet.

Also we are legal now. We received a real Australian sail number. AUS305. This is a pretty cool number being the closest whole number of mm in a foot. Just coincidence or are there 305 footies in OZ? It is a big place so it would be easy to hide them all. We quickly made some PCB templates for the sail number for the new sail.

So far one outing with quite strong wind gusts. It certainly appeared to have good boat speed but that could just be that there was good wind. It appeared to be much more critical on sail setting than on the previous sails?

We think that this initial design has gone as far as we can without something to compare against so we are starting on the HOP2IT mark II.

Regards
Peter & Clare

AUS305 HOP2IT :zbeer:

To judge performance, you might want to try out the “Internet Course” setup developed by Brett McCormack in NZ. I believe 3 minutes 18 second is current best world time, but anything under 4 min is not bad.

A search on this forum will bring up the info you need. “Brett” on this forum had a listing of world times from a July 2008 IC Jaunt & Jostle.

I just checked Brett’s site & the listing of IC times is still posted.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bsmack/

I video taped my laps with time display showing so I could concentrate on the sailing vs. trying to run a stop watch.

Peter and Clare, very nice looking sails and the boat seems to be moving well. In the pics the stern looks to be dragging though. I don’t agree with my friend Angus that a submerged transom doesn’t contribute to drag and may be desirable.

May I suggest that on HOP2IT II you increase the boat’s rocker to provide more submerged hull volume. This way you can maintain the desired all-up displacement and get the transom out of the water.

On my boats I set my transoms inboard of the panel ends about 1/8th inch (3.2 mm). This is done to eliminate the end plate effect (eddies that curl back towards an immersed stern plate) as much as possible. This is most important for acceleration in light, inconsistent winds. It will also help to reduce the turbulence off the stern that is evident in the photos of HOP2IT underway.

Hi Frank,

We have looked seriously at the internet course but haven’t done anything yet. Realistically sub 4min is outside our present ability. Also the difficulty of placing the course in a public lake far enough out from the bank to get reasonable air is a problem yet to be solved. We are working on it.

Regards
Peter & Clare