open 20 footer

[Andy P]

The term to use for foiler's relevant length must be FOILBASE. ( can I patent this ? )

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Andy P

The term to use for foiler's relevant length must be FOILBASE. ( can I patent this ? )

I think you need to Trademark (TM) it. Would you then paint your appendages with Foilbase paint?

Why not call it FWL: Foiling Water Line (circle C) (TM)? That would remain in the family of DWL. The you would have to bow to my copyright and trademark!

Hey, "Paul B" my 16' foiler is an on going development project ; the boat serves as as a test bed for a new foil design(see http://www.fastacraft.com under aeroSKIFF ),new rig design including a square topped jib and more(see: http://www.monofoiler.com for some old pix and specs) . The foils are perfect but the original manual altitude control system was not.The "cockpit" layout was not good and the sheeting system-at least singlehanded- was poor. So the boat is being converted to a wand system with manual overide and several new ideas are being added to make the boat even more powerful and easy to sail. The boat hasn't really foiled satisfactorily because of some of these problems-but it will when the mods are complete.
My first foiler design,the F3, almost 5 years ago also happened to be the worlds first production rc foiler(see: www.microsail.com for videos and stills) and it worked 100% perfectly the first time-even with a new completely untried foil design.
So when you try radical experiments you can get lucky like I did on the F3 or run into "development issues" like I have on the 16.Both are great learning experiences......
----------------------------------------------
As to a flap generating RM on a canting keel boat you might want to read the original patent on the idea: 5,622,130 It is not only a viable idea it's application opens up the use of hydrofoils on monohull canting keel boats.
================================================

Andy, you can't patent FOILBASE™ -I done just trademarked it! Anyway I like that better than "footprint"......

[Andy P]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

Andy, you can't patent FOILBASE™ -I done just trademarked it! Anyway I like that better than "footprint"......

Oh well, another potential million pound making scheme bites the dust !

I'll just keep making the 470 foils.


It must still be winter ( ie no sailing yet ) or I'd be too busy to read and write all this s**te !

[usa2]

i saw the pictures of aeroSKIFF...in all the pictures it seems to be moving at a good clip but still glued to the water. Do you have any pictures of it actually foiling? Or does it still have some things that need to be worked out for it to foil?

No foiling pictures-the boat wasn't working well enough and I've been singlehanding it. The new mods will make it easier to handle and early to foil with 20% or so more RM.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Lorsail

The boat hasn't really foiled satisfactorily...

Shall we take this to mean "not foiled at all"?

If it doesn't have to actually lift off to be called a foiler I suppose I could add a couple of small foils to my keel bulb and claim I have the first "offshore foiler".

[usa2]

How do you figure two people will be able to get "in tune" with the boat to perfectly balance it and keep it flying perfectly? On a Moth its easy because its only one person, but if its a doublehander, what happens if a gust hits you and one person senses one thing and the other something different and they both react to different things? If these foilers are as fast as certain people claim them to be capable of, then pitch poling one or some other result of that nature is not going to be a pretty sight. Also, what do any of you people think about saying Australia 2 was one of the first(if not THE first) monohull foiler. based on what we know about the aeroSKIFFs tests so far....Apparently they dont have to fly. They just need the wings.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by usa2

..what do any of you people think about saying Australia 2 was one of the first(if not THE first) monohull foiler. based on what we know about the aeroSKIFFs tests so far....Apparently they dont have to fly. They just need the wings.

Ding, ding, ding, ding..second big winner of the day.

You may choose any prize off the middle shelf.

[CT 249]

BTW, while we're raving about labels; Doug, what makes the 16 footer a skiff?
The true skiffs are known for large rigs and large righting moment, and always have been. The 16' foiler type has 16.9 m2 upwind plus only 13.9m2 in the kite (barely bigger than the tiny Fireball spinnaker). For comparison, a 16' skiff (most conservative of all the original skiffs) has 22m2 of upwind sail and a 45m2 spinnaker. A 12' skiff has around 48m2 in the kite.

Considering that the foiler type has only 75% of the upwind sail of a skiff and only 1/3rd of the spinnaker area AND no traps, is it really a skiff? It doesn't come from a skiff heritage, it may arguably be leading edge and high tech, but you could say the same thing about a modern Z Jolle or Norfolk Punt and skiffs they ain't.

The answer seems to be that it has basically none of the attributes of a true skiff, therefore it cannot be one.

OK, English is a living language - but natural change is different to just grabbing a trendy term and applying it to something totally different for marketing reasons, isn't it?

[usa2]

the aeroSKIFFS rudder foil looks like it has too much surface area, and that seems to be forcing the bow down a little. Does anyone else share this observation?

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by usa2

the aeroSKIFFS rudder foil looks like it has too much surface area, and that seems to be forcing the bow down a little. Does anyone else share this observation?

You must be mistaken.

Originally Posted by Lorsail

The foils are perfect...