HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jun 05, 2014, 09:52 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Cocoa Beach
Joined Jan 2010
228 Posts
Discussion
Americas Cup 62(5.17') RC racing cat?

I wonder if there would be any interest in a model like this. I'd suggest:
1) no wand foil systems allowed(to make it true to the original-working foil systems to be available or designed by the skipper)
2) limited movable ballast allowed(to simulate crew movement)
3) One Design wings
See the actual rule released today below:
DLord is offline Find More Posts by DLord
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jun 07, 2014, 10:10 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2014
35 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLord View Post
I wonder if there would be any interest in a model like this. I'd suggest:
1) no wand foil systems allowed(to make it true to the original-working foil systems to be available or designed by the skipper)
2) limited movable ballast allowed(to simulate crew movement)
3) One Design wings
See the actual rule released today below:
I like the idea Doug, but why a one design wing? I also think that moveable ballast on a model is likely to make foiling more difficult due to the additional weight.

Jim.
rcmm is offline Find More Posts by rcmm
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 07, 2014, 12:45 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Cocoa Beach
Joined Jan 2010
228 Posts
Ac 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmm View Post
I like the idea Doug, but why a one design wing? I also think that moveable ballast on a model is likely to make foiling more difficult due to the additional weight.

Jim.
-------------------------------------------
Thanks, Jim. The full size AC boat is going with a virtually one design wing to try to save money-same idea here. Maybe it could be worked out with some individual or company to supply wings? The wings would probably have to have removable sections to allow reefing.
---
Movable ballast is probably essential to have enough righting moment-the full size boat moves the crew side to side. I'm thinking of about 2 pounds. No problem at all foiling wise but does add the expense of an RMG winch and a servo of some type for F&A movement. Sailing a small cat w/o movable ballast can be frustrating. Weight would be in a small tray(maybe including the battery?) and could be removed in light air.
---
The more or less scale foil system also requires a servo on each side to raise the foil and probably one on each side to adjust rake(angle of incidence).
Might be able to figure a way to offer a "standard"(not one design) set of foils for those that don't want to fool with foils?

Pictures below show a Trapeze Power Ballast System on an F48 cat and one being used on an RC Scow under sail:
DLord is offline Find More Posts by DLord
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 07, 2014, 01:16 PM
Registered User
Monterey Bay California
Joined Feb 2004
14,050 Posts
Something like this is probably way over my head but... like the 1:1 AC cats, I'm sure the engineering would be very interesting and the racing exciting for those involved.

I hope this goes somewhere!
Aerominded is offline Find More Posts by Aerominded
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 07, 2014, 03:33 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2007
246 Posts
The interest is there, although there would have been more couple of years ago - just in the middle or right at the and of the cup, but I'm really afraid that most of it will quickly disappear as soon as the sticker price effect will settle in (as happened to the big AC accidentally too). This thing is going to be too expensive for the casual sailor and too expensive for the racing minded sailor too (the one that will drop the 2-3K for the last IOM or M - that have the advantage of being well established and sailed classes).
If you want this new class/idea to have some hope the first thing that need to be addressed is the cost, having one RGM winch just to move some ballast (and I assume a second one for sail control), a wing and foils designed and produce by a third party (that will want to have some sort of financial return from it), several servos just to operate the foiling system (added sailing complexity) and a radio able to control everything, those are all things that will substantially increase cost and ultimately complexity, and those factor will reduce substantially the interest pool (and ultimately success).
Obviously unless this is just another multi hull theoretical exercise.
gio06226 is offline Find More Posts by gio06226
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 07, 2014, 05:09 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Cocoa Beach
Joined Jan 2010
228 Posts
Ac 62

I'm certainly not interested in another two channel wonder that uses none of the technology available to RC sailors these days. You have airplanes and helicopters being flown by video, for crying out loud-it's about time a performance multihull class- preferably based on the new AC boat- came about.
It won't be a boat for everyone but won't be much more expensive than an IOM or 50 but, if others agree, and we go forward it will be a spectacularly fast and technical boat to sail. It will be a showpiece of what modern technology can do when applied to an RC multihull.
---
PS-I think having a one design wing with the same constraints as in the full size AC is the way to go but that doesn't mean someone has to buy it from a vendor. Just seemed like a way the cost/time might be reduced. I would be for a rule that allows anyone to build the whole thing with the same constraints on the wing as on the full size boat, and wide open design on the foils-maybe even including the use of a wand based system depending on further discussion and what the full size rule says about that. I know, for instance, that the full size rule prohibits flaps on any foil. The problem(s) with using something like the Bradfield system of Ketterman system with dual independent altitude control systems is:
1) either of those systems requires an oversquare boat so that the foils don't get overloaded(because they provide lift and righting moment) and the Rule won't allow a boat that wide,
2) The Rule probably won't allow wands/feelers because a dual independent altitude control systems can produce incredible loads and that would be the result of the increase in righting moment using a system like that on a full size boat.
The new UptiP foils are extremely efficient and fast as well as having heave stability nearly equal to whats possible with a wand based system. The downside is that few people are familiar enough with the design to do it right ,and the windward foil needs to be retracted.
My idea of haveing a "standard" set of foils or a standard plan was to help people get beyond that and be able to complete and race a boat with "normal" model building and design skills. I know some people that might help with the wing and foils. I, for one, don't want to get into building a wing but I'd love to sail with one just like I'd like to sail with the UptiP foils.
DLord is offline Find More Posts by DLord
Last edited by DLord; Jun 07, 2014 at 05:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 07, 2014, 06:04 PM
Registered User
Monterey Bay California
Joined Feb 2004
14,050 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLord View Post
...if others agree, and we go forward it will be a spectacularly fast and technical boat to sail. It will be a showpiece of what modern technology can do when applied to an RC multihull.
Keep fighting the good fight, DLord!

I know you have been a proponent of foiling for a long time, in many different circles...

I will be the first to admit that I was a skeptic about foiling, etc. and that I'm sort of old school with my sailing ...

Moths, sure... Laser/Torch, OK... but I still can't exactly describe my feeling when I first saw an AC boat foil.

still amazed just thinking about it.

foiling is almost getting to be pretty widespread.
Aerominded is offline Find More Posts by Aerominded
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 07, 2014, 09:53 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2007
246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLord View Post
I'm certainly not interested in another two channel wonder that uses none of the technology available to RC sailors these days. You have airplanes and helicopters being flown by video, for crying out loud-it's about time a performance multihull class- preferably based on the new AC boat- came about.
It won't be a boat for everyone but won't be much more expensive than an IOM or 50 but, if others agree, and we go forward it will be a spectacularly fast and technical boat to sail. It will be a showpiece of what modern technology can do when applied to an RC multihull.
---
....
No problem with me, go for it.
What I was trying to point out is that a drone that can be flown by video can be bought at the local mall for less that two RGM winches, ready to fly batteries included. The planes and helicopter flown by videos are substantially the same ones that are flown by a simple four channel radio, the basic package is the same than a cheap electric park flyer. The modern technology just made everything smaller and cheaper. ..... It does not have to be a plastic two channel wonder, you want real modern technology why not trying for real by keeping it simple, effective and original
gio06226 is offline Find More Posts by gio06226
Last edited by gio06226; Jun 07, 2014 at 10:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2014, 09:46 AM
Registered User
United States, FL, Cocoa Beach
Joined Jan 2010
228 Posts
Ac 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by gio06226 View Post
No problem with me, go for it.
What I was trying to point out is that a drone that can be flown by video can be bought at the local mall for less that two RGM winches, ready to fly batteries included. The planes and helicopter flown by videos are substantially the same ones that are flown by a simple four channel radio, the basic package is the same than a cheap electric park flyer. The modern technology just made everything smaller and cheaper. ..... It does not have to be a plastic two channel wonder, you want real modern technology why not trying for real by keeping it simple, effective and original
====================
Can you explain exactly what you mean by that?
DLord is offline Find More Posts by DLord
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2014, 11:48 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2014
35 Posts
Doug,

I like the sentiment, i.e. push the boundaries, but reproducing on a model scale what is done 1:1 seems a bit restricting to me. One of the attractions of building on a small scale is that we can try out ideas for little cost that would require an enormous budget at full-scale. I'm also a bit dubious about having too much complexity. With so much to control it would be necessary to have a great deal of automation. I don't know about you, but I would need to spend a few years getting my coding and electronics skills up to speed before I could take something like what you are proposing on.

Jim.
rcmm is offline Find More Posts by rcmm
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2014, 01:31 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Cocoa Beach
Joined Jan 2010
228 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmm View Post
Doug,

I like the sentiment, i.e. push the boundaries, but reproducing on a model scale what is done 1:1 seems a bit restricting to me. One of the attractions of building on a small scale is that we can try out ideas for little cost that would require an enormous budget at full-scale. I'm also a bit dubious about having too much complexity. With so much to control it would be necessary to have a great deal of automation. I don't know about you, but I would need to spend a few years getting my coding and electronics skills up to speed before I could take something like what you are proposing on.

Jim.
---------------------------------
Thanks ,Jim. I disagree with the characterization:"so much to control". The frequency of use of most of these channels is very little.
RC Channels:
1) rudder
2) sheet(wing + jib)
3) raising and lowering boards
4) athwartship movable ballast
5) f & A movable ballast
6) rake adjustment-may not be required on radio-jst adjust for conditions. if on radio it would be infequently used
------
Notes:
--On a programable radio(not requiring "code"), 3 & 4 could possibly be on the same stick or slide.
-- #5 would only be adjusted just before rounding the windward mark, and just before heading back up wind- 1 time per leg. Not much control effort there.
--# 3(and possibly #4) adjusted each tack or gybe once.
-- #1 & #2 adjusted as per normal sailing.
----------------
Optional adjustments:
a. camber on wing-adjust for upwind and down ?
b. rake adjustment see #6 above
c. rudder foil angle of incidence- radio or manually between races-
d. separate jib slot channel
===================
These controls are simple, straightforward and require between 6 and 9 channels. I noticed an ad for a 2.4 GHz 9 channel radio for something like $53.
Absolutely no "electronic" or "code" skills would be required. You would have to learn to sail this thing well but I would think that would be the fun of it.
Here are a few shots of my new Test Model trimaran-ready for it's first sail. Shown with jib and then Code Zero. It uses UptiP foils like the 62 would but on the ama on this boat. Very shortly I'll be learning a lot about those foils. They have no radio rake adjustment on this boat.
DLord is offline Find More Posts by DLord
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2014, 02:57 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2007
246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLord View Post
====================
Can you explain exactly what you mean by that?
No prob. Basically, beside the electronic component, you want to make a scale model of a AC65, with some ideas you proposed long time ago (movable ballast), it doesn't seem very innovative to me, why not a scale model of Hydroptere then? I was hoping for something more groundbreaking ...
gio06226 is offline Find More Posts by gio06226
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 08, 2014, 04:17 PM
Registered User
United States, FL, Cocoa Beach
Joined Jan 2010
228 Posts
Ac62

You can't get much more innovative than the AC62 since it uses the newest and most historically significant foil and foil configuration* for multihulls in the history of mankind. That's innovation !!
* *3 foil configuration with a single main foil-(never done before AC34) that lifts 75-80% of the boats weight and can have an intrinsic altitude control system requiring no moving parts on the foil.(Foil system refinement on boats like the Flying Phantom and GC32 has proven the stability and ease of sailing posible with the foil and foil configuration).

PS of course Hydroptere uses movable ballast(water)but the I think the 62 foil system is probably more efficient for sailing around a course as opposed to just straight speed. And since no movable ballast RC cat has been developed since the first D4Z sailed I'd say movable ballast in a simple, reliable system is quite innovative. And a wing replacing a soft sail in a class racing boat is another innovative component of the proposed AC 62 class.
DLord is offline Find More Posts by DLord
Last edited by DLord; Jun 08, 2014 at 04:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 09, 2014, 05:01 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2014
35 Posts
Doug,

I agree that what you are proposing is technically possible, but I'm not convinced that it will be possible to get good performance without some form of automated control. From what I have seen of foiling rc boats on YouTube I think that the response time of a human using an rc controller is unlikely to maintain stable foiling.

Jim
rcmm is offline Find More Posts by rcmm
Last edited by rcmm; Jun 09, 2014 at 05:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 09, 2014, 09:20 AM
Registered User
United States, FL, Cocoa Beach
Joined Jan 2010
228 Posts
Ac 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmm View Post
Doug,

I agree that what you are proposing is technically possible, but I'm not convinced that it will be possible to get good performance without some form of automated control. From what I have seen of foiling rc boats on YouTube I think that the response time of a human using an rc controller is unlikely to maintain stable foiling.

Jim
===================
Jim, I think you have probably seen surface piercing foilers which have very low stability. The best I've seen is Ian Holt from Australia and his surface piercer is pretty good. The difference with the new UptiP foils is that they have automatic altitude control not reliant on speed. Theoretically, they should be as stable as my old F3 using the Bradfield system was. The advantage of a Bradfield foil system is that it automatically provides vertical lift and righting moment and for most models is the ideal foil system.
The F3 was extremely stable and could tack and gybe on foils-pictures below. It was a 2 channel boat.
DLord is offline Find More Posts by DLord
Last edited by DLord; Jun 09, 2014 at 09:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Review Thunder Tiger - 1/25 ETNZ 1M America's Cup Racing Yacht Kit Review Michael Heer Sailboats 2 Aug 30, 2014 04:22 PM
Discussion Anyone Watching the America's Cup Races? Pipemajor Life, The Universe, and Politics 78 Sep 28, 2013 02:24 PM
Discussion Foiling Cats, Little America's Cup JIM CALDWELLA Sailboats 5 Sep 25, 2013 06:32 AM
Alert OT-America's Cup match race... BIG WINGS dawsonh Slope 27 Feb 15, 2010 11:59 PM
Wanted Volvo Ocean Race or Americas Cup RC scale boat wanted oab Boats (FS/W) 1 Sep 11, 2008 05:57 AM