It's not very big, about 2" x 2", so it's easy to enclose. Tupperware and PVC pipe seems to be a popular choices. You just need to figure out how to protect the wires.

This is a simple drawing of the mechanical system I was thinking of. It is close to how a helicopter head works. The center pivots motion is dampened by rubber bushings. As the main support shaft tilts to one side the linkages attached to it change the blades pitch angle. This could be combined with a gyro.

Originally Posted by BluenosePacific

Balr14, $20!! that's amazing!

2501, sorry, I thought you had misunderstood but it was I who missed you...

The board seems the way to go.

Can I set it in epoxy to waterproof it?

This is complicated stuff, and it is hard to communicate in writing.

You can do whatever you want with your boards, and I would suspect aircraft folks don't cover them with epoxy, to keep the weight down. For waterproofing electronics, there's a spray substance, I forget what it's called, but it has a red tint to it, and I've seen an entire airplane run underwater with that stuff. The advantage of that over epoxy is it can be easily removed if you need to.

Roto Bob,

Thanks for that.

This was my original plan but I don't think the vectors are very good.

The centre canard under the pod would allow balancing like a bicycle and be much more effective at a much less drag.

It would also increase roll damping which would be beneficial at start up speeds.

What do you think?

2501,

Thanks for that.

Weight isn't as critical in my case because I weigh 200 pounds!!

While it all adds up and can't be ignored, it's all relative.

Is it worth me designing all the software or would the $20 board be just as effective?

Originally Posted by BluenosePacific

2501,

Thanks for that.

Weight isn't as critical in my case because I weigh 200 pounds!!

While it all adds up and can't be ignored, it's all relative.

Is it worth me designing all the software or would the $20 board be just as effective?

The Multi-Wii board is already programmed with software appropriate for a multi-copter. I don't think that would work for what you're doing, but it would be worth a try to see if it worked, then if it doesn't, I think the board can be completely reprogrammed.

There's a ton of products like this ArduPilot - these are based on Arduino, so you can find lots of open-source code for it. The nice thing about these is you get all the sensors you need for a multi-copter, but since you don't need all that, starting with a basic Arduino and buying sensors separately might be cheaper, and you wouldn't have any wasted components - the ArduPilot has 3 gyros, but you only need one. You're forging new ground, so the chance of needing something very customized is pretty high.

http://www.robotshop.com/ardupilot-m...m_campaign=jos

Originally Posted by BluenosePacific

Roto Bob,

Thanks for that.

This was my original plan but I don't think the vectors are very good.

The centre canard under the pod would allow balancing like a bicycle and be much more effective at a much less drag.

It would also increase roll damping which would be beneficial at start up speeds.

What do you think?

Not quite certain what your thinking. My cad drawing is for the center canard. The linkage locations can be moved to change the amount of pitch control. If I have time I can make a more detailed drawing.

The KK2 board can not be reprogrammed. That would require the MWC board I linked: http://www.goodluckbuy.com/crius-upg...r-v1-0-se.html. You can get MWC boards from $20 - $100; they all use Arduino code and the MultiWii interface.

Originally Posted by Balr14

The KK2 board can not be reprogrammed. That would require the MWC board I linked: http://www.goodluckbuy.com/crius-upg...r-v1-0-se.html. You can get MWC boards from $20 - $100; they all use Arduino code and the MultiWii interface.

Yeah that's the one I meant when I said the Multi-Wii board... I did not know it is Arduino based. That means you can pretty much program whatever software you want I think.

Roto Bob,

Have a look at my original post and you'll see in the sketch the canard below the bulb.

This would have much greater effect than the horizontal control surfaces on roll for a number of reasons.

With that in mind, maybe reread my post # 34.

Ok, you can use the same control concept with the vertical canard. The linkages would be horizontal in that case. I think it would make it turn, as it corrected for roll. That might be ok, or complicate the steering. Hard to say without doing it. The horizontal controls have one on each side, pitching in opposite directions.

Roto B,

You've never seen anything like this before I can tell.

That's okay, I don't think you're alone.

I've been studying this concept for years.

The centre canard doesn't effect yaw.

It's centering (calibrating) may induce some lean or banking which would compliment steering, but other than that it's effect is simply roll.

And very effective I might add.

It's the same principle as riding a bicycle.

I may end up combining the two control surfaces (horizontal and vertical) to reduce A'sOA and/or control suface size and there-by drag.

Drag is really the biggest "evil" here as prop power is so limited.

There are many design feature which will cleverly reduce drag as velocity increases.

I'm pretty excited, I picked up the hull yesterday!

2501 & Balr,

I really appreciate your input here as I'm considering a few more processor contolled functions: pitch (including depth, or ride height).

Depth would likely be from a water pressure sensor.

The submarine folks use this.

It would eliminate my aft strut and foil...

I'll make another drawing for clarity.

This had eluded me until I "saw the light" with the electronics.

Gotta admit, it still quite daunting...

So, I know it looks the same as before but there are some significant differences in control.

Roll via the centre canard below the bulb

Pitch via the aft foils, fully pivoting

Yaw via the horizontally pivoting propeller, it's been moved out front in order to get the cleanest, undisturbed water to maximize efficiency as power is the weak link.

Ride height via the forward foils and water pressure sensed

The advantage of the single strut is reduced drag.

About 30% of the lift will come from the buoyant bulb while purged of water at speed.

10% from the aft foils,

And the remaining 60% from the forward foils.

Balancing load shouldn't be that large if the sensing board and servos responds in a timely matter.

Sooooo, where to go from here in designing a board and software to dynamically balance this beast...

Yes, don't see these everyday. I have only seen regular hydrofoils.
After thinking about it, I see what you mean about the vertical canard being very effective on roll. Is possible to use both the vertical, and horizontal for control.