Thinner Footy?

Footy Class General Discussion (Footy)
1

I wanted to see who else might be moving in a similar direction in Footy evolution. My current stable of Footies share some common stats:

All up weight approx 460g (400g for BC Wide)
Ballast 270g (210 for BC Wide)
Hull approx 25g
Battery pack (AA Lithium) 70g
Sail servo (HS82MG) 20g
Rudder servo (HS55) 8g
Receiver 10g
Rudder 4g
Keel 20g
180 Square inch Fathead swing rig 25g

All boats are built so keel is maximum allowable length, top of bow at top of box with bulb sitting on the bottom.

Now for the differences.

“BC Wide” blue/white boat with “wood deck”.
WL length 12"
Max beam 6"
MAX WL beam 4.25"

“BC1” blue/white double-ender with white deck
WL length 13.4"
Max beam 4"
Max WL beam 4"

“BC2” bright finish/white double-ender
WL length 13.4"
Max beam 2.75"
Max WL beam 2.75"

Impressions:
I’m loving the fathead swing rig so far. It is a pleasure to tune and I’m sure has more potential than I am realizing in the hands of someone with more sail tuning experience.

The wide boat is my least favorite to sail so far. I need to do a lot more work on balancing it. With the current set up in light air I have slight lee helm, a fair breeze brings neutral helm, more breeze a weather helm. Tacks fairly reliably. Need to see it against other boats to check speed. Seems prone to submarine downwind even with batteries well astern.

The BC1 is the boat I sailed at the Titusville regatta. It was a great pleasure to sail and seems to balance well in most of the wind ranges I commonly sail in. Downwind it will submarine but it just keeps going wherever you point it while doing so.

The BC2 is unraced so far but seems also to exhibit good behavior. What I really like is how clean its wake is. It leaves very little evidence of its passing. Similar characteristics to BC1 downwind so far. I’m very surprised at how well it does downwind considering the very fine (by current Footy standards) entry.

The next prototype has a max and WL beam of 2". I’ll let you know how it goes…

Take care,

Brent

2

My Footies also have an LOA!!

:):devil3::zbeer::confused:

3

That is extremely interesting. For the benefit of us decadent metric-thinking Europeans I have taken the liberty of converting your figures to metric.

The result is

All up weight approx 460g (400g for BC Wide)
Ballast 270g (210 for BC Wide)
Hull approx 25g
Battery pack (AA Lithium) 70g
Sail servo (HS82MG) 20g
Rudder servo (HS55) 8g
Receiver 10g
Rudder 4g
Keel 20g
0.116 m2 Fathead swing rig 25g

All boats are built so keel is maximum allowable length, top of bow at top of box with bulb sitting on the bottom.

Now for the differences.

“BC Wide” blue/white boat with “wood deck”.
WL length 305 mm
Max beam 152.4 mm
MAX WL beam 108 mm

“BC1” blue/white double-ender with white deck
WL length 340 mm
Max beam 101.6 mm
Max WL beam 101.6 mm

“BC2” bright finish/white double-ender
WL length 340 mm
Max beam 70 mm
Max WL beam 70 mm

This is all very interesting indeed. What is striking is how heavy the boats are. My Moonshadow and Voortrekker designs are a little shorter (320 and 325 mm respectively but much lighter (Moonshadow 335 g, Voortrekker 340 g as built). We did consider the double-ender route but came to the conclusion that in NW Europe it would be a mistake - we would gain length but at the expense of more form drag (pregnant cow shape) and a lower prismatic coefficient. I can quite see that in central Florida it might be very hard to beat.

Another encouraging thing about your narrow designs from where I sit is that they are the first ‘steam-roller’ Footys (muscle Footy is perhaps the wrong word for something so narrow) that have used the displacement to get a seriously heavy bulb rather than litter the place with ever more massive chunks of dead tree! If I might say so, you still have a luttle way to go. Moonshadow’s hull weight is about 10 g and her electrics are substantially lighter (RX 8 g, sail servo 7 g, rudder servo 5 g). Her ballast weight of 215 g gives a ballast ratio of about 64% (if I rember corectly) as against your 58%.

On beam - Moonshadow 90 mm BWL Beam at Deck approx. 87 mm
Voortekker 80 mm BWL, Beam at Deck approx 77 mm.

Gary Sanderson’s Voortrekker derived Thintrekker has really taken the bull by the horns with a beam of 65 mm and DISP of about 285 g.

My latest effort - Easter Saturday - is being built by someone at Titusville and ha been specifically designed with Titusville conditions in mind. The hull is a Moonshadow derivative with about 35 g extra displacement (mostly a concession to the builder’s claimed [!] lack of skill) and a considerably lower prismatic coefficient with more rocker and a shallower, slightly finer stern.

It is my understanding from a lot of ex-NASA weather data that in the afternoons when racing mostly happens in Titusville the windspeeds are pretty predictably in the order of 4-5 m/s (8-10 knots). In these conditions I would expect (or perhaps pray) that the lighter boat will do better, with a higher prismatic compensating for the shorter WL compared with the double ender.

I attach (I hope) a copy off the lines of Moonshadow.

Seems to have worked!.

:zbeer::zbeer:

4

Angus,

Thanks for doing the conversion. I’m hoping the thread will spur some discussion so others will give a skinny hull a try.

The other factor that I hope will encourage experimentation is that all these hulls are carved from pink insulation foam. Very little builder skill is involved. So these hull weights, which would encompass all the hull structure, servo support, mast step, rudder post, fairleads and deck of a more conventional design, are very achievable to the average hobbiest. At these weights I haven’t even bothered to hollow out the unused areas in the hull. I could probably get rid of another 5-8g this way.

Finish on the hulls is two coats of water based polyurethane sanding after each. Over this you can spray cheap fast-dry enamel to your heart’s content. The wood look is achieved by using a furniture repair marker over flat white. One final coat of waterbased poly or thinned epoxy over top gives it a good look. The epoxy is more ding resistant.

You can conceive a hull concept Saturday morning and sail it Sunday afternoon if you wish. If it doesn’t work throw it out (or give it to someone who won’t build) and cut out another. The hulls will sail fine, thought they are ugly, as raw pink foam. I cut openings for the batteries, rx, servos, rudder post, and mast step using various bent or straight pieces of heated coat hanger or tubing.

The overall impression I have from these boats is that they sail more like larger boats now. With my lighter, beamier boats I was always concerned that I would miss a tack when the wind got up. These designs can still miss a tack but you have to make a decent mistake with your thumbs to do so. The higher displacement means they carry some way to make an iffy situation turn out for the good more often than not. I used to hate having the lighter boat get into irons at the first sign of trying to pinch or because of a slight puff or shift as I prepared to come about.

The other thing I find interesting about the heavy bulb is the ability to carry a taller rig. As you mentioned the typical wind here is not that strong and lighter air seems to have a higher gradiant. The taller rig lets me pick up the slightly stronger wind sooner than a lower rig might. My current mast is 25" (635mm) above the deck. I’m going to try others at 28" and 31" (710mm and 787mm) to see what is too much even for light days. As you can see from the pictures these are relatively high aspect rigs. Paul Taylor and Bill Hagerup can tell you from another bitter experience I had that 48" (1220mm) is too high. :lol:

Take care,

Brent

5

Having raced against Brent’s boats over the last 8 months, I can attest to his developmental skills and build quality. In the initial light air at the Titusville regatta the BC1 double ender was significantly faster than any other boat in all directions. When the wind increased, to around 10 knots, the speed advantage seemed to diminished slightly but was still there and the boat carried it’s sail well, better than my well modified but reliable 507 (with 200g torpedo bulb on wider carbon composite fin, bigger rudder and taller but conventional sloop rig). It would be interesting to see BC1 sail in company with Scott Spacie’s American Footy, (or maybe his Cobra) which to date appear to be the quickest of the US Footys.

6

I agree that it would be very interesting to sail my maximum beam boats against Brent’s skinny ones! Maybe we could meet in the middle some where.
Scott

7

Can I interest anyone in a trip to Birkenhead next July? As a matter of interst, it’s not as far from NYC to Birkenhead as it is from NYC to Los Angeles!!

:slight_smile:

Angus

8

Angus,

Is the Easter Sunday builder a secret? Will we see it at one of the upcoming Florida regattas? I’m anxious to see one of your designs in person.

At least one of my design elements came from comments you made on this forum, namely the idea of a more deeply submerged stern. Other credits go to Niel for the advantages of aft battery placement, Paul Taylor for teaching me something about the characteristics of a double ender, and to Brett for the inspired Z member in the rig. This is a great forum for learning.

Take care,

Brent

9

I don’t thik it’s confidential but I really ought t get permission to go public. I was going to ask him tonight but I fell asleep and it’s now a bit late at his end to be ringing.

In any event, there are now two of the brutes a-buillding in Florida. Somebody else has decided he’s building a wooden one. Frpm the photos this seems to be getting on nicely.

Incidentally, for double-ender lovers everywhere, have a look at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRfoDLofaYs&feature=related

Very fast little (about 30’) boats.

:zbeer:

10

Angus, thanks for the link to the Spaekhugger video, really fine little boats, 26 or 27ft long I think and quite quick. Brings back memories. I came across one in St Thomas just after hurricane Hugo in '89. Storm casualty, very beat up, stranded on a shingle bank off Frenchtown in Charlotte Amalie, tried to buy it but the owner had the good sense to tell me to get lost. My acquaintance with double enders has been long, from prewar Hillyards to a transatlantic on a Frances 26, with lots of others in between. Properly designed they are not as slow as some people think.

11

Scott,

Are there pictures of your boats online somewhere? I’ve done a quick search but to no avail. I’ve seen the Cobra and the AF but not your paritcular boats. Do you mind if I ask what is the sail area are the rigs you are using?

I really like th idea that at least so far boats and rigs that are so different from each other are achieving respectable performance.

It amazes me to think anyone can get decent performance from a 12" B rig. This is an area I’ve pretty much avoided so far. My only attempt to date was a square planform semi rigid McRig. The front 1/3 or so was a depron foil. It did move the boat but I’m not sure how efficient it was. I suppose the first time I lose due to being severely over-canvassed I’ll get back to it.

Take care,

Brent

12

Brent,

You’ll be surprised. I hear a lot of comments from Footy skippers about theirs being the only boats on the water when all the one metres have gone home due to the strong winds. With the right sail Footys just love a good blow.

Cheers,

firstfooty

13

Brent,
On the Yahoo Footy group under “Photos” find “Huntington Footys” (it is about five pages in). The American Footys are a full six inches wide and the Pitou, the Micron 2, and the Cobra are about an inch less than that. The McRig A.F. seems to be the fastest in steady conditions and the conventional one is better in shifty ones.

The sprit rig meets the 12 inch rule and is the one I use in extreme conditions. Bill used one in England the first day when it was blowing thirty or so. He said its performance was erratic, but at least it kept him in the game until the lighter winds on the second day. I saven’t sailed it against other boats because when it becomes effective, no one else will risk their boats in the water!
Scott

14

This little beauty was very tempting, and worthy of serious consideration:

http://classifieds.woodenboats4sale.com/?1501880

15

A truly beautiful boat (as you may guess I am a sucker for Scandinavian, especially Swedish boats). Did you know that a Tumlare (pronounce like Tumbler: it means Dolphin) won the Transatlantic Race from Bemuda to England in (I think) 1948. To comply with the minimum overall length, she had to have an aluminium false bow fitted.

:zbeer::graduate:

16

Scott,

Thanks for leading me to the pictures. I remember you were one of the first to advise and encourage me when I built the Depron Razor. You certainly do produce nicely sorted rigs.

Does the “B” sprit rig feature a larger jib to main proportion than your larger conventional A rig? Or does the whole plan move forward?

Take care,

Brent

17

You can find some interesting comments about Tumlare’s in an early Adlard Coles book (I forget the name) , discussing their bad habit of burying their sterns when running downwind in heavy weather. Same thing happened with my Frances 26 when pushed too hard downwind, the stern digs deeper and deeper. Perhaps a useful characteristic in a bow burying class like the Footy.

18

At the Titusville II regatta yesterday I got my first chance to see the BC1 and BC2 hulls together on the water under racing conditions. My suspicion is that the thinner BC2 may be slightly faster than the BC1. It also seemed to submarine to about the same degree downwind even though the bow is considerably finer.

I should get the 2"/50mm beam BC3 in the water this week. I’m anxious to see if this going to far. Maybe the equivalent of Footy anorexia.:wink:

As far as the submarineing issue goes does anyone have any thoughts on the merits of various locations of the pitch center of the hull? My thought currently is to try to get the pitch center as far aft as possible in hopes that the longer moment in front of this pivot will help keep the bow up. It occurred to me this morning that having the pitch center forward and the heavy gear (battery pack) aft gives a long lever that might also serve to keep the bow up. Comments?

My efforts to get the pitch center aft so far involve moving everything including the keel and displacement aft. My hope being that the resultant aft rig location will also lessen its moment. I’m not sure this is sound theory though.

Take care,

Brent

19

Brent,
When I name rigs, I use the same system that my other developmental classes (M, 36/600, A) use. So a ‘B’ rig to me is what I would use from about 12 to 18 mph. I consider the 12 inch rig useless around here and only experimented with it because Bill was going to go to England where it might be useful. It is a true sprit rig with only one sail. The “C” rig that he had with him would have been faster, but with the rig rule as it now stands, he would have been tied into that rig for the rest of the regatta.

The square-topped “B” rig on #26 (which won Needham this spring and which replaced the orange main that won Region #1 last year) does indeed have a proportionally larger jib than the “A” rig. I got lazy and didn’t want to put in another mast step and was constrained by the length of the bowsprit and backstay, so I put in a ‘spreader bar’ so I could carry more sail up high in the jib and still have a jib topping lift. In the really heavy stuff you can tighten the backstay and twist off the head of the main which worked well in Needham.

I expect your narrow boats will pick up less weather helm than my wide ones, but the effect will still be there. I remember that my old ‘Skinny’ (ORCO89) Marblehead was quite sensitive to main/jib balance.

Regards,
Scott

20

Brent, I have sent you a PM