Wing sail for an A Class Cat

[DSmith]

We are looking into designing a solid wing sail for an A Class Cat.

We would like a program like XFOIL but for multi element wings. We want to look at slot geometry and section shape in a 2D sense. We have heard of MSES from the same guy who wrote Xfoil (Mark Drela) but the email from the MSES website bounced. Has anyone used this software?

Can people suggest and provide recommendations on the different types of multi-element software available for comparing different configurations?

Regards

David Smith

[Doug Lord]

Have you talked to Steve Clark or anyone else on the Cogito team?

[DSmith]

No I haven't. We didn't particularly want to bother the master until we have done a bit more research. No doubt he is a very busy man.

[Doug Lord]

He's also an evangelist about this stuff and tends to be very helpful; might save you a lot of re-invention. I've e-mailed him before and he answered pretty quickly..
Your project sounds very, very interesting; good luck!

[Stephen Ditmore]

You might also check in with tspeer (Tom Speer) in these forums. He's an aeronautical engineer with Boeing Phantom Works.

[DSmith]

Yes, I've seen Tom's website and some of his multi-element work. If you are out there Tom, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Dave

[Steve Clark]

Dave, I think MSES, or the multi-element design tools cost real money. We can offer some guidance as to what we have tried and why we think it has worked, but the most important thing to get right is the control system. If that doesn't work well, the section choice will be irrelevant. We have VERY STONG reccomendations.
SHC

[SailDesign]

but the most important thing to get right is the control system. If that doesn't work well, the section choice will be irrelevant.

As proven in the recent "C" series :)

Steve (Baker)

[tspeer]

I used the Eppler program to design the wingsail sections you see on my website. Like XFOIL, the Eppler code can only handle single elements. But I also have the MCARFA code that can analyze multi-element sections, even though it doesn't have an inverse design capapbility. So here's the technique I used:

Say you have a design pressure distribution (or alpha* distribution for the Eppler code) you'd like to see on the main element. Construct a starting configuration from two existing sections, say NACA 0012's, and analyze the main element's pressure distribution with and without the flap. The difference is the effect of the flap. Subtract the flap effect from the design distribution to get a new design distribution that you can plug into your design code (Eppler or XFOIL). Design the section, add the flap to it, and analyze it to see how close it comes to your original intent. Modify the single element design distribution accordingly and repeat the process. I found it only took 2 - 3 iterations to converge pretty well on what I wanted.

The same technique did not work well for the flap section. In large part because the flap pressures are surprisingly insensitive to angle of attack, but depend greatly on flap deflection. So designing the flap section was more of a trial-and-error process, but basically worked the same - whittle away at the single element design distribution until getting the desired behavior in the multielement configuration.

I highly recommend you look up A.M.O Smith's 1975 Wright Brothers Lecture, "High-Lift Aerodynamics" Journal of Aircraft, Vol 12, No. 6, June 1975, pp. 501-530. Very insightful.

I don't necessarily recommend the sections I designed. I was initially just looking to see if I could do it. So I set out to see if I could create sort of a flapped equivalent to the NACA 6-series sections - flat rooftop, linear recovery. The technique basically worked. I didn't carry it much farther because I hadn't defined the requirements yet for a specific design.

Today the way to go, of course, is MSES. Like XFOIL, it has both analysis and inverse design capabilities. Being a professional code, it's expensive. But you might be able to find someone who's willing to run some cases for you if you can't afford the code itself.

I've found the flap section can be surprisingly thin. The leading edge pressure peak you'd normally get on such a section can be suppressed by closing down on the gap.

The optimum overlap seemes to be slightly more than what you get if you constrain the leading edge of the flap to clear the trailing edge. This is the motivation for the zap flap used on some C-class to allow the flap to tack.

Seeing how the pressure distributions changed with different geometries gave me lots of ideas as to how to tune the rig. You'll want to put tufts all along the chord of both flap and wing initially to see what's happening.

I've attached some files that show a typical case. The section was designed to have a near-flat pressure distribution over most of the main element chord with the 40% chord flap at 20 degrees - although it takes a negative angle of attack to achieve this! There was a definite tradeoff between the length of the rooftop, thickness, and design angle of attack. The second file shows the pressure distributions as angle of attack changed. This combination is very front-loaded like a classic NACA 4-digit section would be, with an adverse pressure gradient over almost the whole lee side.

Deflecting the flap raises the "dumping velocity" as Smith calls it, increasing the lift almost uniformly over the whole wing. There's also an increase in the leading edge pressure peak on the flap. This figure also says a lot about jib mainsail interaction, but that's another thread!

Moving the pivot point on the mail element, while adjusting the link so the flap just clears the trailing edge, varies the gap and overlap simultaneously. Amazingly, the lee side wing pressures are unchanged. As are most of the pressures on the flap. But the flap develops a sharp pressure peak as the gap is opened up.

So for tuning, if the flap stalls suddenly at the leading edge, then the gap probably needs to be closed up. If the flap stalls gradually at the trailing edge, then maybe the flap deflection is too high. If the wng trailing edge stalls before the flap, then more flap deflection is needed. Etc.

There's been a lot of development of wingsails in the C-class and not much high-tech development of wingmasts. What wingmast development there was before the advent of wings seemed to be all empirical. I think it would be very interesting to see what could be done today with XFOIL in designing a modern wingmast rig.

[tspeer]

MSES is available from Analytical Methods. See http://www.am-inc.com/

[DSmith]

Steve, I have read your paper, "The Cogito Project" and have seen the Cogito rig control systems demonstrated in the videos on The Daily Sail website. It is very impressive with the camber and twist being smoothly varied. The self tacking of the rig with trailing element dragging the leading element's rear flap across is a true example of engineering excellence.

Before we get right into the rig control systems, we wanted to investigate the different basic configuration and section shapes. Let me say that I only have a very basic understanding of fluid mechanics / aerodynamics from my Engineering studies and from what I have picked up along the way.

I have been digesting what Tom has said above and the information on his website www.tspeer.com is now much clearer. We were looking to use the 2D multi-element software to study the effect of slot width, element overlap and flap deflection on symmetrical sections similar to those used on Cogito. We were then going to perform a parametric study, similar to Tom's, on 2 and 3 symmetrical element rigs at different Reynolds numbers and cambers (flap deflections). We would be basically trying to develop a feel for what works by trial and error. See Figure 1 attached with the types of configurations that we were proposing to test.

One question we would like to answer is 'if the Lindsay Cunningham 3 element rig had twist control, would it perform better than the Cogito configuration?'. One big advantage of Cogitio over the Edge rig however is the simplicity and ease of control.

I have summarised/scaled the section lift and drag polars from Tom's study of two element rigs with an S901F main element and a NACA 0012 element with different proportions between the two elements. These are shown in the attached Figures 2 and 3.

The Section lift information seems to show that between -6 and 2 degrees angle of attack, the section lift is proportionally higher as the length of the rear element increases from 20 to 50%. From 2 to 10 degrees angle of attack, the shorter rear elements seems to develop a higher ultimate lift. This is somewhat surprising as I would have thought that somewhere around a 50 - 50 configuration would have had the highest lift as the angle of attack on the front element could have been increased as the air on the leeward side had less path to travel before the high energy air is fed through the slot to keep the flow attached. My understanding is probably a bit naive here.

The drag polar diagram shows that the lift to drag ratios decrease with increasing length of the rear element (except for the 50% flap). This seems to make sense.

The system that I would particularly like to study is a 2 element rig like Cogito except the front element has flaps on its trailing edge instead of a separate trailing hinge foil. The trick would be that upwind, the rear element moves forward and inserts between the two flaps to form a single element rig with a higher lift to drag ratio than the slotted wing. There are a few lumps and bumps on the final section that may cause problems but it would be interesting to look into. Refer to attached Figure 4.

I haven't done nearly enough basic research as yet and any suggestions on papers or books to read would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards

David

[tspeer]

I think you have to view some of the data on my web site with a skeptical eye. Especially the maximum lift, since the computational code I used (MCARFA) can only handle fully attached flow and I had to make some really crude "adjustments" to the data to represent stall.

The other problem is each of the different flap sizes had a different section design. I didn't keep the same section and just scale the wing and flap differently. So there's an element of apples and oranges there.

In landyachts, the small flapped wings haven't been all that successful. Probably the best I've seen (Phil Rothrock's Bliss) had a 40% chord flap.

I don't think there's any reason a slot has to add much, if any, drag upwind. External flap airfoils have comparable drag to single element sections of similar wetted area. The problem for a wing sail is optimizing the slot and flap geometry for both tacks. But I think it would be easier to do that than to provide some means for alternately opening or closing the slot.

[Steve Clark]

I'm going to sa some stuff that is going to shock some people.
I think it is easy to overthink some of this stuff, The small detail of section shaping and selection probably maters less than getting the weight down and making the controls simple and reliable.
I mean you are never going to be able to tell the difference between a Eppler or a NACA section if the flap sags and the wing is inside out half way up it's span.
As a result, I encourage you to make nice conservative choices for your sections and then spend most of your effort on the structural and mechanical engineering side of the problem.
A leading edge element that looks a lot like a NACA 63-12 ( with a 20%flap) and a trailing edge that looks a lot like a NACA 0009 is a pretty safe bet. Make it light and it will be really good. Make it lighter it will be better.
Make it so you can tack and gybe without pulling a bunch of strings, you will be happy, make it so you can sail it day after day without rebuilding it, you will be facking brilliant.
As regards the Yellow Pages wings, these were very high lift configurations, they paid for that lift with complexity and weight. In order to get various elements to set, there were miles of very light wire that had to pay out and take up proportionally. This resulted in a a system that was really not very reliable because any hang up would either result in a loss of controll over one of the elements or a failure of the wing control system in total. It may have been possible to add twist to these wings, but I really don't know haow it could have been accomplished within the constraints of the flap control system.
The Dave Hubbard system, which has been the basis of the Patient Lady, Stars and Stripes and Cogito wings, while not as ideal, has the advantage of simplicity and reliability.
In short, I think there are many right answers to the aerodynamic questions and we can spend the rest of our lives trying too determine which is really better. There is more risk in the controls and the structures.
SHC

[tspeer]

I agree totally with your comments. I've only got a little bit of time on a rigid winged landyacht, but I found the wing doesn't "talk back" to you like a soft sail does. Landyachts tend to use wing rigs that are positively controlled instead of rigs that are free to pivot. So it's really easy to backwind the wing when tacking. Rotate it too slow as the yacht turns, and you backwind it. Rotate it too fast and you backwind. That's one of the reasons we investigated an aerodynamically controlled rig that was free to pivot.

And then there's the problem with not being able to see the leeward telltales.

There is a big learning curve in sailing a wing, and time sailing makes a huge difference.

[Steve Clark]

This is always a problem. Look at some pictures of Cogito and you will see an array of windex windicators just in front of the leading edge. This is the notorious "Gang of Four" and allows us to "see" the air flow at the stagnation point at various angles of attack. Pretty simple and elegant, you can also anticipate the trailing edge stall at high angles when you learn what to look for.
Otherwise you need to figure out some combination of periscopes and mirrors to see wollies on the back of the flap.
SHC

[tspeer]

We found that a longish telltale attached ahead of the trailing edge, but long enough to extend past the trailing edge, could be seen to lift as the trailing edge separation began, and then would flip forward out of sight as the stall progressed. It was a good way to judge max lift.

The same thing works with a soft sail, too. However, it's best to put the telltales half way in between the battens. Tying them to the batten ends is pretty useless in my experience. But attached several inches ahead of the leech works like a charm. If they don't get hung up on the stiching.

Most landsailors have gone with just a single short vane mounted on the leading edge centerline, with the vane as close to the LE as possible. It flicks from one side to the other according to the stagnation point, as you point out.

Phil Rothrock employs a really clever wind vane. It's mounted on a small mast a foot or so above the body of the yacht, way forward. A "V" shaped wire with the ends bent up provides a reference like a conventional windex setup. The clever bit is the wire V rotates about the same axis as the vane, slaved to the wing rotation by a pair of cables running inside the body. So the wire ends indicate the proper angle of attack of the wing when lined up with the wind vane.

The vane's location also puts it right in the normal field of view, so the pilot doesn't even have to look away from the direction of travel to monitor the wing trim. A nice feature when you're crossing tacks and avoiding obstacles at 80 mph.

[SuperPiper]

Those were interesting comments about windex and telltale locations.

Putting the windex at the masthead is not particularly practical. It is hard to see and is not in the field of view. I have seen catamarans and dinghies with the windex mounted at deck level on the bow. The idea of standing the windex off the leading edge of the mast seems practical. It would need to be at or above the forestay.

How far forward of the mast would be the most practical? I have a rotating mast (but not a wing section). The windex would always be on the windward side of the boat where it would be most visible. Do you have any additional experience with this mounting? Any thoughts?

[Tim B]

um... clear plastic model aircraft covering film anyone? may be tough enough for the job, depends where you sail it.

Tim B.

[tspeer]

Those were interesting comments about windex and telltale locations.

Putting the windex at the masthead is not particularly practical. It is hard to see and is not in the field of view.

Bear in mind that the wind indicators at the leading edge have nothing to do with indicating the apparent wind direction. The leading edge indicators are in an area that is dominated by the flow about the surface, so they have more in common with telltales than they do with masthead vanes.

The difference is, the leading edge vanes are intended to track the movement of the stagnation point, as Steve Clark points out. The stagnation point is a good indicator of the lift on the wing section. The same lift could be obtained by changing the angle of attack or by deflecting the flap. Increasing either will move the stagnation point toward the windward side.

Phil Rothrocks wind indicator was intended to show the direction of the apparent wind and the angle of attack of the wing, so his was similar in function to a masthead indicator.

...How far forward of the mast would be the most practical? I have a rotating mast (but not a wing section). The windex would always be on the windward side of the boat where it would be most visible. Do you have any additional experience with this mounting? Any thoughts?

How much error is acceptable? These figures show the flowfield around an airfoil at different angles of attack:http://www.diam.unige.it/~irro/profilo1_e.html. A wind vane that read the true apparent wind angle would be horizontal in all these figures. The angle of the streamlines from horizontal indicates the position error at that location. Roughly speaking, the error will be inversely proportional to the distance to the quarter chord of the rig.

I've never tried mounting a vane well ahead of the leading edge, but many people sail by telltales on the shrouds, which have a similar problem.

[SuperPiper]

It is so easy to confuse me.

Could a windex at the front of the mast above the forestay be used to improve performance? The wind direction 2/3 of the way up the mast is likely more "typical" than the wind direction 400mm above the mast. And even if the direction shown by the windex at the proposed location was not True Apparent Wind, could it be easily interpreted to adjust sail set? Would it's indication be intuitive? Would the information be easy to apply?

Masthead instruments seem to be vulverable, especially in the Vendee Globe (and at the boat ramp).

[tspeer]

The problem is the airflow near the mast is highly deflected by the sail rig itself. And the amount of deflection depends on the sail trim. The reason one puts a windex at the top of a mast (and ahead if possible) is to get it as far from this deflected air as possible.

Try it yourself - tape a wire to the mast with a piece of yarn attached to it. Sail in a straight line and see the difference between luffing and trimming in hard.

[brian eiland]

I was looking for some material on the web and ran across this interesting experiment with a thick, double surface airfoil. Brian
_________________________________________________
RIGID WING SAILS

by John Holtrop

First published in EPOXYWORKS, Spring, 1993



The high aerodynamic efficiency of a rigid wing sail is a well known fact. Rigid wing sails have been used to defend the AMERICA'S CUP and are seen on many other high performance catamaran designs. Aerodynamically, a rigid wing sail is identical to an airplane wing. Both cases reward increased lift and penalize increased drag. Airplane wings are simple to design, however, since they fly with a fairly constant angle of attack. This means that an airplane wing's shape, or camber, can be optimized for a normal set of flight conditions.

Sailboats, on the other hand, must operate under many different conditions. For example, tacking a sailboat forces the airfoil shape of the sail to completely reverse itself, and wind velocity changes require that the sail's camber and surface area be adjustable. In the past, rigid wing sails for sailboats used hinged flaps and complex control mechanisms to achieve this flexibility. These designs were heavy, complicated, expensive, and impossible to reef or stow. Obviously, cloth sails are very practical for normal sailboats. Cloth sails are simple, cheap, and can be stretched into many different shapes with simple control lines. For most sailboats, the increased efficiency of a rigid wing is not worth the bother.

The extra efficiency (increased lift and reduced drag) of a rigid wing sail is most desirable for high speed applications like wind surfers, ice boats, or sand sailors. The biggest problem is how to design a rigid wing sail with minimal weight and complexity penalties. Modern composite materials offer the chance to combine the efficiency of a rigid wing with the simplicity of a cloth sail.

Most people think of composite materials as thick, rigid structural components, like a fiberglass boat hull. In fact, thin composite parts will bend easily without cracking, and are many times stronger, and more stiff, than the best sail cloth. Thicker sections (solid or cored) can be added at specific locations where stiffness is critical. This allows one part of a composite structure to be stiff and rigid, while other areas are flexible. Composite materials can be molded into complex airfoil shapes, and special fibers and core materials (graphite, kevlar, honeycomb, airex, etc.) added to optimize strength, stiffness, and weight.

My wing sail concept combines a thick, rigid airfoil nose, with a flexible center body and thin trailing edge. The wing sail is molded from composite materials in the form of a symmetrical airfoil. If the wing sail is rotated into the wind slightly, aerodynamic forces are developed, which buckle the windward side of the flexible center section "in" and pull the lee side "out". These flexible areas then deform smoothly into a shape resembling a conventional cambered rigid airfoil. The amount of camber is controlled by a combination of out haul tension and the physical stiffness of the materials, just like a normal sail. When tacking, the flexible surfaces snap over to the other side, and the camber shapes is reversed (like cloth sails). The rigid leading edge is stiff enough to handle all bending loads, which eliminates the need for a traditional mast and shrouds.

While the basic concept is simple, the exact shape that the deformed wing sail will take and its efficiency, is difficult to predict without building a prototype. Some excellent research has been done on flexible airfoils, both single and double sided, with a variety of leading edges. Much of the airfoil theory in the following design was gleaned from an article written by Mark D. Maughmer (currently with the Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urvana) titled A COMPARISON OF THE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF EIGHT SAILWING AIRFOIL SECTIONS (# N79-2389, 1972) Mark's paper predicts at least a 50% lift/drag improvement for a thick, double surface airfoil, over a conventional sail/mast combination.

Theories are important, but the real proof is how well a full size operating prototype performs. I selected a wind surfer for the prototype, in order to reduce cost, weight and labor. Three years, and many hours later, the theory was put to test. The basic dimensions I selected were based on a standard 60-70 sq. ft. wind surfer sail. Since the rigid sail was more efficient, I designed it 1/3 smaller, for a total of 40 sq. ft.:

length = 152 in.

max chord (width) = 52 in.

head = 26 in.

foot = 30 in.

maximum thickness = 6 in.

The thickness of an airfoil is usually expressed as a percentage of the chord. For low speed efficiency, 12 - 18 percent is typical. I selected the lower value, 12%, to keep size and weight down. The leading edge shape was taken from a NACA #63 cross section, which has a fairly sharp elliptical nose. I basically guessed at these values. They looked reasonable, but other NACA shapes and thickness may be more efficient. The wishbone was attached to a piece of tubing glassed into a socket molded behind the leading edge, and laced to the clew with a 4/1 out haul. A tapered "C section" spar was bonded inside the wing, from head to foot, at the 1/4 chord line. It terminated with a 12 in. tube, which contained a standard "BIC" gooseneck fitting. This spar, and the rigid leading edge, carry all the bending loads, and form a watertight chamber which provides several hundred pounds of flotation.

A plug was built up from wood strips, and used as a male mold for the rigid elliptical nose and tapered spar. Plywood sides were attached to the base of the plug to form a tear drop cross section. The plug was filled, sanded, sealed, and coated with a fiberglass release film. Two layers of 6 oz. fiberglass were laid over the entire plug, with several extra layers in the nose region. The cured part was pulled off, and foam strips glassed into the inside for increased stiffness. A "C" section main spar was molded to fit the plug base, fitted to the nose, and then glassed into its final position. Two layers of 1" wide, unidirectional graphite fiber were added to the spar caps to increase its bending stiffness.

The single surface trailing edge, was molded on a flat plywood form, from two layers of 7 oz. KEVLAR cloth. The unsupported trailing edge was a little too flexible, so three foam battens (1/4 x 1 x 18) were added to one side, about 24 inches apart. The openings at the head and foot of the double surface section were filled with foam plugs, rounded, and glassed watertight. The finished structure was stress tested by supporting it at both ends, and then standing on the center of the spar. My 190 lb. weight deflected the wing about 1/2 inch, causing some creaking, but it held. With a fresh coat of paint and fitted with a wishbone and gooseneck, the finished sail weighed 36 pounds. This is about 10-15 lb. heavier than a conventional rig.

Now for the moment of truth! Is this theory stuff really true? Three of us trucked my BIC and the wing sail over to Lake Isabella in Kern county. Known for good wind, Isabella is a very popular lake for wind surfing. When we arrived, the winds were medium, about 15 kts, with occasional gusts to 20. Everyone was using big sails. We tested the wing sail for the next four hours, and while we didn't blow anyone off the lake, the sail got a lot of attention, and I learned a great deal about the design.

The positive features we found were:

(1) The wing was very sensitive to changes in "angle of attack". It could be feathered easily, then generate lift with just the slightest pull on the wishbone. At speed, the wing seemed to have a narrow "sweet spot", and the rider could dump power very quickly. This made gusts easy to handle, and was predicted in Mark's article, where his data showed the L/D curve for a double sided sail to be quite narrow. The single sided conventional sail has a flatter L/D curve, and is not as sensitive to small changes in the angle of attack.

(2) The wing was much stiffer than a standard rig. There was no "give" during gusts or when pumping. Twist was not excessive, and the trailing edge (leech) was stable and did not flutter.

(3) The double surface section responded to air loads very nicely. The deformed shape looked like a "real" airfoil, and could be controlled with out haul tension. Due to the stiffness of the wing, the out haul had to be quite loose to develop the proper amount of camber for this wind condition. This made the wishbone feel sloppy, but did not cause control problems.

(4) Speed was only slightly less than other similar wind surfers. During gusts the boat accelerated well, and matched speed with the other boats. The general feeling was that our boat was performing very well for such a small sail and light wind. 25 knots, or a 60 sq. ft. sail would have been ideal.

(5) The rig floated high in the water and was easy to up haul. No water starts were attempted, but the wing lifted well, and beach starts were easy.

Negative features were:

(1) The sail area was to small for the wind conditions, and we had no easy way to increases it. With the advantage of hindsight, I would design the upper 3 feet to be removable. A larger than normal sail might be OK with a wing sail, since it luffs cleanly and very quickly. This would help under strong wind conditions.

(2) With the out haul loose for more power, the wishbone felt sloppy. A "slip joint" out haul would hold the wishbone firmly, and still allow for camber adjustment. A 1-1 purchase is adequate, since the wing sail is so rigid.

(3) When the wing was dropped, the rigid foot area impacted the side of the board. The fiberglass would not give, like cloth, so the foot of the sail ripped about 12 in. This let water into the center section, but the damage did not get any worse, or effect performance. The foot section needs to be heavier, and padded like most goosenecks.

(4) 36 lb. is a little too heavy. Using a foam core leading edge and thinner laminates could save 5 lb., maybe more. On a larger boat, the extra weight may be offset since halyards, shrouds, turn buckles, and chain plates are not needed.

(5) Visibility behind the wing is poor. Clear windows could be stitched or laced into the sail.



In conclusion, I think these tests show that the basic concept is sound, and practical for some applications. Thick, well shaped, double surface airfoils are more efficient then cloth sails. Composite materials can be designed to deform into a smooth aerodynamic shape under air loads, without complicated flaps, hinges, and control lines. The bending and torsional stiffness in the leading edge is very high, and a free standing rig is a definite possibility for larger sailboats. The design has a lot of potential for ice boats, sand sailors, and very high speed sail boats.

JohnsBoatStuff (http://www.johnsboatstuff.com/default.htm)

[Van Nostrum]

the java applet at http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm has multi element support

[Martin Gibson]

The comments on using windvanes to tune/trim wingmasts are interesting. If you look at the A-class photos on the sailcenter.se website (and attached), there appears to be a vane on the leading edge of the mast about 4 ft / 1.3 m up from the foot. I assume this is to guide adjustment of the mast rotation

Question is: at what angle should the mast be? Is it always the case that the mast points directly into the apparent wind? Or are there higher lift, lower drag approaches?

[tspeer]

...Question is: at what angle should the mast be? Is it always the case that the mast points directly into the apparent wind? Or are there higher lift, lower drag approaches?

I think this will explain (http://www.tspeer.com/Wingmasts/teardropPaper.htm) what's going on when you rotate the mast. I used a large-chord mast for the example because it was easier to see what was going on and because the landsailors that were the target audience for the paper use masts about that size.

Landsailors use a similar windvane on their leading edges. Typically the vane is positioned so the tail will just barely clear the mast. What it indicates is where the stagnation point is on the leading edge. When the mast is under-rotated and the stagnation point is well to the windward side, the tail of the vane will be firmly over to the lee side. If the mast is over-rotated so that the stagnation point is positioned on the lee side of the leading edge, the tail of the vane will be bow to the windward side.

Many landsailors like to trim their masts so the vane is just flicking from side t side, indicating that the stagnation point is right near the leading edge.

When the mast is rotated so that the lee side forms a smooth contour, the flow can be attached all along the lee side. However, there will be a separation bubble behind the mast on the windward side. You can see the extent of this bubble by putting telltales in a row at the same height along the sail.

When you reduce the rotation from the smooth lee-side condition, you reduce te size of the windward separation bubble and reduce the drag it contributes. However, you start to form a new separation bubble that bridges the crease in the contour formed at the mast-sail junction. Especially if you are trying to depower a little bit, the drag from the two smaller separation bubbles can be less than the drag from the one big one on the windward side.

If you rotate to less than lined up with the local flow angle at the leading edge (which will be more lifted than the apparent wind, due to the upwash from the lift on the rig), you are probably not reducing the windward separation bubble very much and you're making the lee side bubble worse.

So the condition indicated by the mast-mounted vane is probably near the minimum good mast rotation angle. If you're looking for acceleration, you might rotate the mast a bit more than that. If you're looking to depower, then a bit less.

[Martin Gibson]

Thanks - I need to spend some time thinking this through, but it's a good place to start. I'll experiment with mast rotation a little more next time I'm on the race course.

Martin

[Martin Gibson]

A few months have passed since my original post, and I've been unable to find a commercial stagnation point sensor... so I made my own (see attached photo).

This is made from a Little Hawk wind vane, 10 minutes with a hacksaw and a little cyanoacrylate (Superglue). Total cost £10 ($18). This just tapes onto the front of the mast as high up as I can reach. The gap between the trailing edge of the vane and the mast is ~1mm.

It seems to be very sensitive; only a degree or so of mast rotation either side of center and the vane flips clearly to one side or the other and stays there. When the rotation is zero degrees, it oscillates from one side to the other.

I don't know yet if this has made me go faster, but at least I know how the mast is rotated relative to the apparent wind!

Martin

[Doug Lord]

Martin, very interesting! Just a cautionary note: cyano is not very good in an environment where it gets wet as I found out the hard way early on in rc models...

[tspeer]

Yep - that's it! Nice looking installation.

[Rolf Nilsen]

David,

did you go ahead with the A-class wing, or did you drop the project?

I am very interested in hearing results, and what you eventually did with the wing. Also, are there more information about Cogitos twist control available on-line?
Having just re-read some of Marchajs work, he was not too impressed by wing-sails performance in light winds. But it was an oldish book, where he tought the best look avenue for development was with split flaps. I suppose the world has moved on since he wrote that.


Rolf

[DSmith]

No, I didn't. I was getting a little ahead of myself when asking this question. I was putting my A Class Cat on foils and was considering the virtues of a solid rig.

I have spent the time since simply tying to get the cat foiling. It has towed successfully but in its first full sailing trial, we had some breakages.

As it is now winter Down Under, I am concentrating on writing a VPP for the foiling cat. The VPP is just about finished (I hope) and as it is starting to warm up again, I will be back with the A Class soon.

Cogito's twist mechanism is basically a structural tube up the guts of the front element which is connected to the foward section at the hounds. The wing is then twisted by pulling the base of the forward section relative to an arm off the tube. It doesn't twist above the hounds.

From memory, Marchaj's main concern was laminar seperation due to low Reynold's number effects. Cogito seems to have enough power to lift a hull to windward in 5 knots plus suggesting it might not be as big an issue as he thought.

I think that single element split flaps have died a death after the last Little Americas Cup.

[Rolf Nilsen]

Thanks for replying, and the information about Cogitos twist mechanism.

Good luck with your A, hope you get around to playing with a wing when the platform foils cleanly. It seems like the land/ice sailors are the ones most active on wing development for the time beeing..

[DSmith]

The VPP appears to be saying that the extra weight of the solid wing counteracts the benefit of the superior aero performance of the solid wing. I want to run the VPP on an equivalant C class to see whether the balance is tipped back in the solid wing's favour.

Dave

[frosh]

Inevitably there is always a price to pay for a seeming performance enhancement. The weight differential between a soft sail rig and a rigid wing is a smaller percentage increase on a C Cat than A Cat. If you get real lucky, the price is only in $ terms. :)

[Rolf Nilsen]

Percentage vise, I suppose the increase in weight is pretty large on a light platform like the A when swapping the soft sail rig to a rigid wing. It would be interesting to know the result if you ran a i.e. 40% wingmast+soft sail trough your VPP (if it can handle it).

There was an 18square with a rigid wing which was very hard to beat in its day. But I think platform weight was the double of an A.
http://www.geocities.com/mec_coleman/magazinecover.jpg

[L. Hutchins]

Has anyone attempted a solid sail for an A-Cat yet? I am very interested.It seems that the small size of the boat and rig may make this a viable option. I would love to hear about any ongoing projects.

Leigh

[Erwan]

Hi Everybody,

It was a great pleasure to discover your very interesting discussion about this project.
I sailed 15 years A cat, and it has been a dream to achieve such a project.
In 1996 I met Martin Fischer at the world championship, he holds a Ph in fluid mechanics and at this time he had already studied a similar project.

According to Mr Fischer's research I found much later on the web, I investigate myself the global drag of a A Cat winward with just enough wind to fly a hull full trapeze (about 4.5 knts true wind speed).
So we have the righting moment, the wind speed, the boat speed= a proxy from Tornado polar) the average angle of incidence (22°), and we found that the required lift coefficient which matches real life condition is around 1.2 for a an aerodynamic force of 650Newtons+. A proxy of wave drag is interpolated from a serie 64 David Taylor Bassin model, wetted area and its friction drag calculated with a I???? Coefficient, and so on.
I founded a 160N ewton total drag with 90 N from aerodynamic drag and 70 from Hydrodynamic drag. And as the lift Coef was above 1 the Induced drag accounted for more than 60% of the aerodynamic drag.

A multi elements airfoil would be perfect for high lift downwind, but now, downwind, A cat sail "Wild Thing" in order to create apparent wind and therefore the issue is also to deal with aero drag.
That is why I decided to investigate a single element wing section with morphing capabilities . I think that Eppler 61 is enough for hight lift downwind & lower reynolds (maximum camber) and I try to find a very low drag wing section, which could be "consistent" with the Eppler 61 for good performance (low drag) upwind with high Reynolds. I guess a symetric Eppler wing section with similar thickness will do it ??

First I aim to achieve a real size wing section on the ground, and find by trial an error the mecanism which allow to change from one section to another.

It is still a project...of course, I am not very confident about my analysis I am not engineer neither that is why I am on this forum