Hi Row,
got it !
the membrane set up should be screwed in.
Cheers
Claudiod
http://www.ec12.info/Systems%20Board.htm
claudio, here is the building guide for the EC12 control board system setup.
It is a 3/8" roll wrapped carbon tube with a block on the end. As ROW said, it is the turning block for the RMG sheeting system. In the very first station in the bow of the EC12 I have a hole that the end of the tube goes into. its nice as on the lead ballast I have two screws which center the foreward edge of the chassis, and I have a blind nut in the aft end which get screwed down. I can have the board out in about 2 minutes in case I need to resheet the 65lb test sheeting system. All my sheet are 20lb so I have a planned failure point. IE the sheet will break before the main system line. or anything else for that matter.
I have never used the full 4" of travel for adjustment. I only use about 1.5-2" at any given time. I have the full range programmed out to the bare minimum. I have enough travel that the “trim” switches on the DX6i would allow the full movement, but the problem is the Dx6i chirps every time you trim, and it got annoying so I added in a small dial and an extra pot to the transmitter. so my current DX6 will never be able to pilot a helicopter. unless i do some electrical work to put it all back. and I can use my left index finger to rotate the dial to tirm the jib while my left thumb adjusts the RMG. and right thumb steers.
on a secondary note. I am also using RMG’s self tension, 6 turn spiral drum. so no need for the bunjee/extra spring to maintain the loop tension What a great product. my next EC12 will have an identical setup except I may use the new hitech hi voltage water proof servos for the jib trim and rudder servo.
Hi Marc,
than you very much for the explanation and the EC12 site that I will read with attention !
I told that the transmitter functions regarding the joysticks could be inverted simply because the manufacturer need to do so during assembly.
I open the Transmitter and inspected all stuff. Unscrewed the electronic board to find out that each single potentiometer channel are connected via a dedicated connector on the board.
Nothing more easy then to invert the connections as desired. Unfortunately one connection wire was too short therefore I modified the harness to reach the connector.
Now everything is like I was searching and at the same times I spared 250€ for a new transmitter where all channels have the ATV adjustment.
Forgot to tell why all that !
The two joystick vertical movements are dedicated to the sails winches.
Unfortunately the ATV is dedicated to channel 1 (left vertical swing) and channel 2 (horizontal swing).
For me was necessary to invert the channel 1 function with channel 3 (right vertical swing) function as such to maintain the ATV control to adjust the servo winch revolutions.
Practically now the ATV is acting on Ch.1 & Ch. 3 , both with vertical swing, while the new channel 1 (right horizontal swing) is dedicated to the Rudder without the ATV since transferred to Ch.3 !
Nothing more simple !!! probably because is an old 41MGZ FM transmitter…
What is sure is that each channel (potentiometer wiring) is arriving to a dedicated connector on the main board !
See in particular pictures Tx3 and Tx4 that refer to both faces of the board.
No matter about warranty since the stuff is old enough.
See some pictures below :
Cheers
Claudiod
no problem claudio. my only concern with having the rudder and a sail trim on the same joystick would be when turning I may tweak the sails inadvertently or when tuning the sail I may twitch the rudder.
if you had a second controller you could really cut it up and make twin stick on the same side… there was a post here a while about in which someone had done that. soon the “throttle side” you’d have two sticks and two pots, that moved up and down, but no right and left. Neat setup…
it is a bit overwhelming when you first open a radio, but really not a big deal just bits of copper and solder…
You are right Marc,
I should adds more friction to the joysticks when swinging up-down for the sails.
My old Hitec Ranger III Sky 3FM was made in the way you mention. The joysticks could move in one direction only, while a cursor, a sort of trim, called ‘throttle’ was occupying the 3rd channel. Nevertheless I was obliged to turn the right joystick by 90° as such to get booth lever moving up-down.
I tested today and it work OK, not easy to control the rudder but it can be done.
Some work of today , bits and pieces that are very time consuming ! plus Weight updating , deck grow by 23g
Cheers
ClaudioD
Little adjustments here and there and then primer paint on deck.
ClaudioD
Well Claudio,
Having looked again at the weight budget (post 424, last pic) initial impressions are that you should come in under on this build - a glowing accolade to your skills in the manufacturing processes. As to going down the female mold route, well, it just looks more and more likely that she’ll come in under your ‘artificial’ 4000g limit. IF that develops in a way to bring success then I can only say ‘Kudos’ to you!!
She is now so close to the water I can almost taste the salt spray on my tongue !! [i]Will she be sailing towards the latterhalf of the up-coming weekend?!!
[/i]I promise that I’ll stop badgering (& generally making a nuisance of myself!!) once she’s firmly ensconced in the wet stuff…
Regards,
Row
Hi Row,
on one side I intend to reach the 4000-4050g as a design goal, but not much below in order to keep some inertia .
Generally too light boats are jumping up and down in the water especially with low winds conditions. I don’t like it very much .
If then it is proved that is faster then …in this case I could revise my assumptions accepting to go a little up in weight and get more inertia.
This remind me the Class M saga in the 90’s, where everything was done to reduce the weight as much as possible, a sort of “fashion”. Some years later was observed that heavier boats were performing, must of the time, better then the light ones just because of their increased inertia. This was valid for a large range of winds.
Is not excluded to design a boat like the 123 for higher weight including a ballast used when windy and removed when the wind drop. The Lwl will be shorter and the wet area will be reduced.
While the 123 should be a “one design” detailed Rules are not yet written, although I know what to put in …like the ballast option !
Cheers
ClaudioD
Deck painted white. Tomorrow roof in Red !
Deck with power switch 132g
Travelers sheeting length adjustments with the help of a false blocs support. The real one is already bonded on the cockpit floor.
Tomorrow Main and Jib sheet connections.
ClaudioD
Splicing sample for pull test.
The 0.6mm Dyneema string is for 60kg traction resistance.
Specifically made in order to easy the Latex membrane passing trough
ClaudioD
Claudio,
I was wondering how you would overcome the added resistance of the sheeting lines passing through the latex - I could imagine a scenario in very light winds where there was insufficient force to overcome the additional friction, the Tx stick in a position for sails out and booms refusing to move. Your method for overcoming that possibility certainly has merit although I’d be a little concerned with the use of copper wire, particularly in a salty environment. I think the moisture will have a tendency to ‘wick’ up the dyneema causing the copper to oxidise which in all probability would then cause the epoxy to break away. From my ‘big boat’ days, we would use monel wire as a seising because of its inert nature. It’s an absolute nightmare to work with but I do think you’d get a far better long term result.
An alternative would be to get out your magniying glass and ‘properly’ splice the joint - not difficult on 8mm line but 1mm would certainly present difficulties!!
It’s all getting very close to being wet now - if she performs half as well as she looks then you’ve got a winner!
Regards,
Row
Hi Row,
this is why I coated the joint with titanium dioxide charged epoxy.
The test made so far is resisting to a load of 8.75kg and I think is good enough.
The latex membrane do not offer any resistance and the splice may join the latex membrane at about half of the travel corresponding about to abeam reach and do not suffer of any effort being the movement linear and orthogonal to the latex sheet. Non effort angles applied just like a coaxial movement.
Several test done already with the Tx and free sheet. I believe there is similar friction of a pulley, but of course a toke care in making the splice shape.
I’m happy with that since the results are comfortable. The weight is still hanging since 2 hours, wait and see !!!
Cheers
ClaudioD
Very hot out side today 37°C, impossible to work outside.
This morning some 3 coating of white primer to the hull. Wet sanding as soon as possible when warm will go down !!!
ClaudioD
37C ? We dream of temps like that in the UK. Today in Cornwall was generally grey with temps struggling to get above 17/18C!!
Good progress with the painting - mind you with temps that high I’m surprised the paint didn’t dry before it even got to the hull!!
Row
Hi Row,
we could change place ! , I suffer a lot the warm and my hart don’t like it very much either.
With a blower near me I managed to start sanding. I found useful to have two colors as tracking. This is the price to pay for direct lamination !!! The µ holes are very difficult to eliminate !!
For sure next time I will go back to my normal construction method using female molds.
Cheers
ClaudioD
Too hot outside for me (95°F) , so I played with design drawings on the PC.
By adding 150g of ballast at the bow, the waterline will increase by 12mm. Of course the bulb shall be recessed by a couple of mm to keep the level.
ClaudioD
In spite of the 93°F I went out to finish up the hull wet sanding.
The bad new is that the Hull + Deck + Electronics = 848g without bonding and final hull painting
Summing up with Fin, Rudder, Rig, and bulb I get 4166g, which of course is far from what I was dreaming, almost 140g more at the buoy !!!.
The major contribution is coming from the Deck that went out of control or at least under estimated.
The second contribution is the dual winch configuration that called also the Latex membrane setting on the deck. The power switch and eye-bolts contributed for 21g .
I shall study a better approach for the deck construction.
I’m certain that a monolithic deck coming from a female mold will be offering a lot of advantages starting from the various bonding and materials elimination like cockpit floor.
The pictures below trace the deck saga !
At this point I have only one solution, removing one of the 2 winches by keeping the most powerful Eurgle and probably passing to 4.8V. battery. Some weight gains can still be made, where I do not know yet !!!
It is necessary to says that I’m not concern with the waterline respect since there is plenty of margin left from the positive hull lamination and some increase of the waterline length. There still margin to add ballast at the bow !
The point is that the goal of 4050g for the time being is not reached !!
Building construction analysis is undertaken.
ClaudioD
PS :
What is funny is that the first abandoned prototype will be lighter by 58g if the Hitec is substituted with the Eurgle and 4.8v battery !!
The Hull Saga can be resumed with these few pictures.
The actual weight without the Eurgle servo is : 411g because of fair-lead and pulley, back stay hook and small repair, while the Eye-bolts are not included yet as well the deck bonding a final paint.
The original weight is multiplied by 2.7 times.
Certainly, as already written before, there is room for making a lighter hull.
ClaudioD
I’m really surprised that 123 has ‘fattened out’ to such an extent - I was convinced that you had the possibility of bringing her in below the stated aim of 4050g. Regarding her diet, I’m finding it difficult to see where future reductions may come from. If you go for a more traditional female mold you could use gelcoat rather than paint but will that result in a weight saving to the hull? I can see potential savings in the deck if that came from a female mold, but I wouldn’t have thought you’d see reductions much beyond 25 - 30g.
While going for 4.8v over 6v gives an immediate saving of 20%, is it worth it when you also look at the reduction in servo performance?
I’m fascinated to see how you’ll shave a minimum of 116g from a future incarnation & look forward to reading your ideas & reasoning…
Regards,
Row
Hi Row,
unfortunately there many little things that contribute to weight increase.
For instance I added the power switch that contributed to additional 13g , the battery container, including bonding, another 9g, the Latex membrane with additional 8g , all for 30g already ! Cockpit floor alone for 22g all 4 pulleys another 10g at the end all together make already 62g. etc.
Non after a ‘hot’ night sleep, I decided to continue in spite of 130g of weight excess against my own specification and this because is the first time that I could experiment the use of two separate servo winches for main and jib.
As written before there are several points that could be made to get a lighter boat.
Actually my model will not suffer of extra weight for two reasons :
1st - the positive lamination produced an excess of volume of 180g. Measured DSPL 3853g against 3673g from design and therefore the LWL remain unchanged.
2nd - ignoring the gained excess of volume, the actual weight would sink the boat by : 135/126* = 1.07 mm and the LWL will increase by 9mm only from 1150mm to 1159mm.
*The water plan surface is 1266cm², therefore each “close variation” of 1mm, up or down, will correspond to 126g.
I thus expect now to get the boat ready at the buoy for 4180g, unfortunately without internal ballast .
For future development, I intend to dispose of additional 150g to be transformed in movable ballast inside the hull. This means that I shall forget about the ‘dreaming 4050g’ at the buoy but rather 4200g or even 4250g.
I say that because, after reflection on the subject, I think that an adjustable ballast is more efficient then reducing, withing certain limits, the total weight.
Why?
The relative small wavelets encountered by our models, are corresponding in scale to very large and deep waves for a real boat.
The boat are suffering very much of pitching movements that forces to modify continuously the sail CE setting including the 'nose down" effects and various drags.
Possible options are available to reduce the pitching movements, the flared bow and the increased bow/stern damping by adding some weights.
Flared bow are visible in many models projects, The “old fashion boats” like Enterprise have natural form that offer a good damping effects since a pitching movement will produce a very fast volume increase of the bow to counter act the movement.
When observing the last America Cup mono hull boats, they have vertical walls from bow to stern that do not contribute at all to any damping effect and this is a pity ! but it is another story !!! .
Flared bow are rather efficient but not very nice to see since the deck plan is large also close to the bow tip.
Since the immersed volume and shape is not a problem within the 123 project, I spent some time yesterday to redefine the hull shadow form to render the deck plan more acceptable.
As you see Row, the “123” project is in continuous evolution including the unwanted/wanted weight increases
Regards
ClaudioD