Oh Lordy (Doug)

Shut Up Doug, Nobody likes you anyway.

 

Greenwood, that was not a productive comment.

 

Your right but it was funny as hell

Sorry Doug

 

Thanks again for the reply, Jon.

I apologise for thinking there was a direct link between your work and Smiths; for some reason I tend to read sloppily when I look up things for posts on this particular site. It's a bad habit.

Thanks for the information about the inherent weaknesses in Smith's concepts. The fact that a concept with such problems can result in films of models that seem to be working well is, of course, a reason some people aren't happy to use vids of models or the credentials of designers as definite proof that a concept must work. (This is a general remark, not aimed at you).

Would a smaller Monofoil work, or is its current size necessary? Like others, I'm just thinking of the difficulty of getting the same sort of experience with the edges of handling in a big boat, compared to boards or Moths where you can crash and recover easily. Or the way the American bicycle builders you mentioned started with a glider about 13 feet span, then a 22 footer, then kept expanding.

I can understand (just from uneducated gut feeling) that a smaller Monofoiler may not work as well as the full-size one, and therefore starting small may not have been an option.

DG, the foiler Moth guys are not garage mechanics; they include guys with Doctorates in metallurgy (I think; some engineering science type PhD anyway) and a former F1 car builders. The modern-style rig was pioneered a long while ago by Dr Taffy Bowen, one of the early leaders of radar and radio-astronomy.

Re negative criticism of novel approaches; yeah, it can be a problem for some of us, BUT some of those who push novel approaches are quite happy to criticise (explicitly or inherently) the "status quo".

 

Whewheee!!

DG, for what it's; worth I agree with your position.

Perhaps you could have come at it in stages and let Howes do his own dance in response, but that's gone now.

Looking at the responses from JH, it would seem that he's a little on the testy side of the diagram right now and it shows in the come backs. His claims are arrogant and if he doesn't know it, he should be told same. I get the marketing aspects of the position, but it is rather more than a little premature and rings of other hyperbole spew we have all heard in the past.

Gut level sailors are known to be plain talkers. Engineers can tend to speak in technical terms supported by folders of data. If there were ever a brew for non-stop haggle, that package sets-up as a real winner.

Howes will probably settle down some, you'll temper yourself a bit and there just might be a nice exchange, eventually. Just keep in mind that you are talking to an engineer and they, sometimes, speak a different language that has its own cycle of nuanced value. That nuance is placed on different regimes than other types of folks place on their communication. It would seem that you are both attempting to describe similar things; just in different ways.

As for the attempt, by one group member, to chastise your effort... well, some guys are just truly smitten by their interpretive dedication to all things technical. Our friend clearly regards JH as some dude with a glowing ring around his head like an old, Renaissance painting of the Christ. He'll do anything to stand close to the glow, as he sees it, and will snap at anyone who is the least bit testy with he who wears the glow. Respect is something that one must continue to earn, it doesn’t just sit there sweet and glowing on ones head. Past deeds should be measured with a degree of respect, but it won’t get one far if one is simply sitting around with the aging expectation of it all.

Maybe it's because I've been in combat and had the base line crap scared out of me too many times, but I just don't genuflect at all for anyone based on Letters or clothing. If they come at me like a regular guy and have the humor and ready smile of friendship, they’ll be met with same and personal discovery is ours to behold. It is possible to respect a person for their demonstrated human qualities rather than an assemblage of artifice and technical things. There's no need to scuttle about as if the chosen one were nearby and we just might be sent off to the dark side.

Stay off your knees, maintain some decorum about your humanity and look the other dude in the eye without smooching their butts.


I like your style, DG. Perhaps a little rough, but honest with intent.

Chris Ostlind

PS: I originally posted before the whole, shut-up, thing, so this is an edited post script to ask that you tone it down.

 

CT 249
Boy oh boy, do you have me wrong! I have the utmost respect for the Moth guys. In my estimation they are the ultimate in the way things develop in this sport. Interaction and innovation based on going out and gettiing wet. There are engineers and resin jockeys building things in their garage or any high tech shop that will let them in the door. Take a look at the Moth site (At least as of a week ago) there are pics of guys proudly displaying single knot increases on their GPSs That is how it happens. Not many of them have big sponsors and they find ways to go a little faster every day. It is the same thing I love about Open class sailing. This stuff happens with Minis and is now happening with the Class 40s.
If you knew me you'd know, I will drive a long way to help out guys with novel approaches. In fact I have finished building boats on Friday at 5 and driven for four hours to work for free all weekend to help out guys with novel approaches. Many times. My family goes without my company for long periods of time so I help out with those kinds of projects.
You can't even guess how many hours I've worked for free teaching guys how to wire their boat or vacuum bag or fair a foil.

I dont need to be lectured on dissing guys with novel approaches. My family will tell you just the opposite. Guys with novel approches dont have any damn money. But they are humble and driven and have hopes and that is what draws me to help them.

I just spent a month in Europe looking at and working on boats at the Velux 5 Oceans and the Route du Rhum. I have sailed on Formula 40s, Open 60s, class A cats, Orange II and many other out of control machines. I've logged well over 150k nautical miles on big ol' clunky wood schooners and light weight rockets. I love the machines and all the technology...but it is those guys with the crazy ideas and chunk of carbon that they scrounged up somewhere to make a foil to go a little faster that I really have a soft spot for.

That is how the Mini, the Moth, International 14s and many others have driven the innovation in this sport. I want to be there when it happens.
Those ideas eventually end up at Multiplast or VPLP or Finot or Goetz or Farr.

And that my friend is why I will always question anyone who tries to steal their thunder and why I will help anyone who can convince me they have a genuine idea.

Chris
The shutup thing was a joke. And if you look at it that way it was funny. I did sincerely apologize.

 

We can all recognize hype when we see it. DG has real life experience with high speed sailing, we don't know if you or JH do. Spending considerable effort is absolutely no indication of probability of success. You of all people should know this.

JH was the first to lower the bar with "Grow up or get back in your cave. This is why I would rather solve engineering problems than waste time on forums."

Now you are up on your familiar high horse and make predictable comments about the character of others.

Your style is very close to JH's, it does not do a very good job of convincing anyone about your ideas and does a dandy job of making enemies.

BTW ... Considerable effort ... hows that foiler coming? Full scale or model?

 

"Can he build a radically stronger structure? Can he radically reduce the loads on that structure, is there something that we have all missed? To date many attempts by skilled engineers has resulted in much shredded carbon and hexcel. Some have upped the anti by a couple of knots."

I can analyse loads and design a structure to suit. If you don't have a handle on the loads you cannot design anything with any certainty. The wing, for example has a peak limit load of 2.5 tonnes, with a 1.5 safety factor this is a design load of 3.75 tonnes. To get these loads (just as with an aircraft) you start with load cases, work out the effect of the various load cases on the bits and design each bit to the worst case. The load case for the wing is smooth water, max speed. The load case for the cross boom for example is foil re-entry after about four seconds out of the water. The load cases could be wrong, right, or over the top, they are my best shot from current state of knowledge. The structure follows from the load analysis.

"Do I think it will crash out? Yes. Many times. Nobody has ever tried something like this before and it will take a lot of time and a lot of failed runs before it flies. Then again, how many gliders did the Wrights smash up before they finally got their airplane to work? How many Airfish went end-over-end before the Flarecraft flew? How many Moth foils snapped off, or snagged on debris, or just plain disintegrated, before they caught on?"

This is a sensible comment, there have been plenty of interesting incidents during model testing and I am sure that they are not over, if it was easy everyone would do it. I have worked the stability of the various elements as hard as I can without full scale testing so the only options are give up or proceed. Most of the structure is, or will be, overbuilt to some degree. The wing is the weakest element but as this looks to be the component that is least likely to be correct first off it is built as a one-off from wood (the rest is composite) so that changes can be made simply and repairs will not need over controlled facilities, it is chunky, the upper spar cap for example is sitka spruce, 75mm wide by 95mmdeep at the root, lower cap is a bit lighter due to the difference in compression and tension strengths of timber.

"It would be very interesting, but with the movement of the waves disturbing the flight of the wing, and at that speed, that thing would have to be driven like a race engine.

I doubt that an autopilot would be good enough. In a sailboat, autopilots sometimes are not good enough, but it is not a big deal. With that animal, the first small error would make it break into small pieces."

Disturbance to the free feathering wing was an issue in need of solution. The key elements are the degrees of freedom of the wing, its static stability margin (a bit like the CG range of an aircraft but for CG read pivot point), the mass balance and the reative position of CG and rig pivot. The wing is free about its pitch and yaw axes but stiff about its roll axis, ie, a two degree of freedom pivot, this means that if the boat is disturbed by (for example) a lateral gust to weather the rig will feather towards the hull, ie, into wind, this causes the pivot to reduce rig roll, reduces the drive component (de-powering) and slightly increases the lift component. The resulting slight lift of the hull from its steady state causes a slight roll to weather, this reduces lift on the hull horizontal tail which causes a slight nose up pitch, which due to the previously mentioned roll to weather, has a slight upwind yaw component (also de-powering), the increase in wind during the gust is thus met with a corresponding de-powering of the boat. This is a handful to describe in words but coupled behaviour like this can also be found in any other vehicle dynamic stability problem. The worst thing that generally can happen is a wave actually hitting the wingtip, this gives a sudden purturbation to the wing which can result in some nasty transients, stable and damped but it can deliver a rough ride.

"Will this thing be able to be used without computer help?"

Yes, it is stable. The aircraft that use computers are either marginally stable or are unstable, the reasons for building an undstable aircraft are that reduced or negative stability leads to lower trim drag and faster control response (usually in combat). Canard (tail first) aircraft have particularly poor drag characteristics if stable due to the high cruising CL that the canard needs to maintain, however, unstable canards can equal or exceed the efficiency of conventional aircraft. Either computer or aerodynamic servo control of these aircraft is essential, the Rutan Voyager used an aerodynamic servo on the canard elevator for this, most military aircraft (the Eurofighter Typhoon for example) use computers.

"What I object to is, the outrageous statements that they will approach double.... etc etc"

These outrageous statements are design targets based on work to date. Is your philosophy "Aim low, avoid disappointment."?


"I can understand (just from uneducated gut feeling) that a smaller Monofoiler may not work as well as the full-size one, and therefore starting small may not have been an option."

The sizing of Monofoil was an inevitable compromise driven by run away loads as the size goes up versus the sensitivity of a smaller boat to conditions. Broadly, the last model needs a wind at rig height of between 8 and 11 knots to fly properly, ie, a range of only 3 knots, this is a tough call for testing. As the boat gets bigger this band widens so bigger makes the boat more versatile and less sensitive to weather. One thing that will not go away is the size and mass of the crew (one man ideally), more weight means higher wind for lift off so the boat was sized for single crew but has the option of a second seat in favourable conditions. A "mini Monofoil" could be built (and was going to be built until I gained a project partner with a large workshop) but would tend to be more frustrating to test.

"JH was the first to lower the bar with "Grow up or get back in your cave. This is why I would rather solve engineering problems than waste time on forums.""

Was I? What about: "Another question is:
Doesn't the recent ORMA carnage i.e. the Route du Rhum, make you wonder how these fellas could be so stupid as to not be sailing on foils with solid wings. Jeez with average speeds under 30 knts they are barely moving."


I still don't get why DG thinks that I just crawled out of the woodwork and claimed the earth. This project has been on the web in various places since at least 1999, anyone who has followed it will have seen many of the iterations that got it to its current position. Originally I would not tell a soul about its design targets for reasons that must by now be all too obvious, I was pursuaded to release these targets against my own judgment as I knew that many people simply would not handle the concept. However, the first model, in its third iteration managed 22 knots in 8 knots of breeze so I was pretty happy that it was going the right way. To go back to the Wrights, they started in earnest in about 1899, nobody in Europe believed them until 1908 (the French press called them Les Bluffeurs), they did not suffer from the internet, looks like I'm dragging my feet. The current boat may or may not deliver, it is horribly time consuming and expensive for a non-profit activity, it may not be the final boat, it is my best shot with current knowledge.

Jon.

 

JH
It is going to take me hours to take in all you"ve said and process it. (the part that I get anyway)

Simple stuff to you is work to me. Like pitch yaw and roll of a wing at that angle is not intuitive. Five minutes with my head cranked over to 45 degrees and I get it.

I don't think you just crawled out of the woodwork, I was put off by the off hand way in which you make the shoulders on which you will attempt to stand look feeble.
Your efforts are appreciated. I can see that you have put alot of work into this and I don't want to belittle that. And to a certain degree I see your point about the Wright Bros. The reality is that they and many others broke alot of spruce ad tore alot of canvas before they made it a few hundred feet. They did not soar with the eagles on day one.

No.. I am the last guy to think you should aim low. Breaking the 1 mile record is not low. Hell 60 knots would cause an outrage that would have everyone demanding a retrial. I hope you go so fast they call you a cheater.

If, as you say, it is your best shot with current knowledge, then you are most definitely headed in the right direction.

And I am not the guy you have to convince of anything but I have to say I remain skeptical of your design breaking any ocean records. Please---prove me wrong, Can't think of anything more exciting than a whole new approch to boatbuliding. I'd have to start over, at my age that would be a pain in the ***, but show me how it's done.

I will be following your progress with attention and support and will root for you at the races.
DG

 

To avoid excessive forum "ping pong" Here is a very truncated account of Monofoil development written hurredly in response to requests a while ago. Excuse the wooden writing style, I was busy at the time. Hope it answers a few questions. Part 3 still to be written if I ever get the time.

Jon.

 

Interesting thoughts, Jon; I look forward to hearing more about this... well, whatever it is, as it progresses.
It certainly defies categorization, to be sure.... but it's an interesting take on the problem of going fast under wind power. Instead of taking a boat and giving it more sail and less drag, you're taking a sailplane and gluing it to the water.
As for the technical jargon.... I don't mind so much, but it does tend to confuse people... (random aside- Eurofighter Typhoon, eh? Haven't seen that thing since it was called the EFA/2000 series.)
Best of luck, Jon.

 

DG,

Thanks, I appreciate the comment. I have not actually played down anyone's previous achievements it is simply that I will not get the performance that I want by copying everything that has gone before. If you have a read of the two Word docs that I have just posted you will see that much of this plainly hangs on previous work (I didn't invent aeronautics) without which it would not happen. Not mentioned in the article are many of the people that have helped along the way, mostly wife and colleagues, difficult people whose full time job is to tear aircraft designs limb from limb in the hope of making them safer. Nick Povey, who got me into this via his Speedweek efforts is a former flight test engineer, most of my direct colleagues were test pilots, systems engineers, structures engineers, software engineers etc. They were always very happy to throw rocks and make suggestions, the most common being "My god its ugly"... That was not a design objective, it just happened that way.

Marshmat:

"Eurofighter Typhoon, eh? Haven't seen that thing since it was called the EFA/2000 series"

It was briefly called the Future European Fighter Aircraft or FEFA until someone pointed out that in one European language FEFA was actually rather rude. Flight International then came up with "Five Europeans Frigging About".

Jon.

 

DG, I think you may have over-reacted. I think the comment that I was referring to ("The moth....had not seen the kind of engineering effort that world speed records had seen. It was guys mostly building them in their garages.") can easily be read the way I, and some others, read it.

I agree wholeheartedly about the great value and style of the way Mothies and 14ers and other guys operate. It's the way I love it, too. We're losing that, to a great extent. It would be wonderful to work out how to make it as popular as it was years ago. I wonder how much the continued success of guys like Farr/Bowler and Finot is due to the fact that they started off in exactly the same backyard way?

Closest I got to it in speedsailing was making a radical (too radical) speed board years ago, and starting on a wingmast which was dumped when another regatta got in the way.

Jon, thanks for the detailed reply.

 

Very interesting reading. Thank you for sharing it. I see that you have a sense of humor about the process

I thought I saw a bit of the yaw oscillations you mentioned in one of the model videos. It looks like you have come up with a solution to limit them. Well done. A free flying or sailing model is much harder to design than one that is piloted. What is most impressive to me is that the model performs despite of the gradient problem close to the surface, not because of it. It will be very interesting to see what the final compromise on foil area is at full scale.

I too, hope that you enjoy success with the Monofoil. I'd like to see the Monofoil beat both the windsurfers over 500m and 1M and the lead mines over longer distances.

 

Thanks for posting all that background Jon, very interesting.

Would there be any benefit to adding WIG/ekranoplan style wings to the boat, to generate additional (vertical) lift? I figure this would allow you to use a smaller sail. You probably know more about WIGs than I do, but I'm imagining some sort of Lippisch inverted delta wing with the unusual (not NACA) section.