Fastest Sailboat on the Planet!

If it took off from the water by itself first sure why not

 

thats my point, do the rules say the object must have started from stationary in the water?
not possible on a windy day for a boat so how do they cover that one?

 

Chris, we live in a democracy, right? Therefore the culture of complaint can definitely have legs. I mean, I'm always suffering from harbour board and naval authority heavies closing in on me because of complaints. And I am innocent ... whereas we know the trenchies are not.
Can't see anything wrong with a sailplane/yacht, powerabout. I'll be setting new records in similar concept Seditious Sid behind lava flow Meola Reef in the Waitemata. Fast sailers are there in numbers already; hard southwesterly and flat, OPEN water ... although the 4 inch waves may be TOO much for the Namib trench spoiled kiters.

 

Why don't you ask the WSSRC?

 

Gary, You must be hell on the little woman when she's not in the mood. I mean, come-on, bro, let it be. No amount of juice at this stage is going to do a dang thing, so on to other stuff, right?

Maybe you have the term democracy confused with something like, somebody else actually gives a crap? Just because you get a fleeting privilege to blow some steam, is a far cry from anybody listening, much less being willing to hoist your flag and draw all sorts of attention in that direction. Take a drive down to City Hall some day this week and stand out in front tossing your opinions about with a bullhorn and see how far you get. You may even go to the trouble of getting a sidewalk demonstration permit and have a small bit of juris prudence on your side. The outcome will be the same.

Now, if you actually think this thing through and somehow cajole the City Clerk to put your name and purpose on the City Council Calendar for matters to be heard, you might, just might, get called to the podium where you get your three minutes to spew. Again, let's see if anyone even looks up, much less opens a discussion on the issue. Most likely, after waiting patiently all day, or night, in the chambers, your matter will not be called and it will get tabled until the next meeting. When you arrive all bright and bushy at the next meeting, you find that through some clerical error your matter was inadvertantly left off the agenda. At this point a smiling and ridiculously pleasant secretary fro the City Clerk will invite you to resubmit with the City Clerk's office, where the whole thing starts all over again.

You mean that kind of democracy, Gary?

For those who just can't get enough resolution from their repeated posts, here's an idea and we'll see just who may have the necessary gravitas to be considered. From the pages of the WSSRC. Read it carefully and get those cards and letters into someone important so that they can nominate you for an up, or down, vote by the existing Council.

COUNCIL

Members: to be persons who are considered to have the relevant experience and interest in this aspect of the sport; membership should reflect the involvement of the Nations interested in the sport. No limit to numbers. Candidates to be proposed for election at Council meetings. Quorum: Four members.

Chairman and Vice Chairmen: Elected by the Council and approved by ISAF.

Term: Four years, and eligible for re-election.
The Executive Committee shall consist of the Chairman, 2 Vice Chairmen and Secretary. It shall take decisions on behalf of the Council on day-to-day matters. Such decisions shall be communicated to the Council.


So, here's a chance for all those folks who feel that their voice isn't truly being heard. A quick look at the names of the people on the existing Council puts the bar pretty darn high. So, get on out on the water in some kind of noteworthy speed sailing activity, put in some serious time at your own expense and sharpen-up that Curriculum Vitae for inclusion in the lovely letter that another really noteworthy person will submit in nomination on your behalf.

Failing to meet that muster call and those minimal criteria, ;-) you are simply, to use a well-known phrase here in the USA, Pissing in the Wind.

 

hey Chris, tongue in cheek, attempt at laughter; democracy, everyone knows it's a joke in reality for the little person, the full force of the NZ Navy and council bureaucrats heavying innocent little me (because I sailed Groucho Marx too close to super secret kiwi frigate) and Seditious Sid going to lower from flight to sea level at Meola Reef to set records like a surface feeding bird. Thought it was over the top thick. Ah well, failed again.

 

Where was 'stationary' ever mentioned?

 

The rules include:

9. MEANS OF PROPULSION
A yacht shall sail by using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed.

So, now that you have given me the idea, here it is.

I take my fast kite/glider out to sea well to the windward of the "course". I have a long retractable line attached to a sea anchor. In 30 kts of wind, I use the sea anchor as an almost stationary point, and fly my craft to 2000 meters like a kite. I then retract my anchor, and dive down to 2' off of the surface at the start line of my downwind course doing 120 kts + 30 Kts = 150 kts. I glide through the measured 500 meters with a slender altitude control wand skimming on the surface (moth style) to keep a constant 2' of clearance to my fuselage. If I lose 20% speed over 500 meters, average speed will be 135 kts.

Any co-conspirators?

Note that I only used the power of the wind operating against a surface (sea anchor) in the water to "increase" my speed.




Now the above all sounds great, but

7. MANUAL POWER
A yacht shall use human power only apart from battery power for instrumentation. There is no objection to various methods of power transmission such as hydraulic, provided there is no element of power storage beyond that associated with materials in their conventional sailing application. The Commissioner should, following a record run, ensure that no means of power or stored energy has been used.

Somehow, I think they would figure out that they could use the stored energy clause to send us down the road without our well deserved record.

 

It looks like you also used gravity... as in: dive down

 

Blame it on the Internet. Happens all the time that folks misinterpret what would easily be understood as humor, should we be in front of one another. Satire and clever sarcasm are even more difficult because you get the reader's tendency to personalize on top of the Internet thing.

 

That would definitely get up some sniffy noses PFlados ... but my idea, actually Jon Howes, wouldn't require lawyers to exonerate the concept; that is a wing in ground effect yacht (which is actually very close to Sail Rocket except there are vertical and horizontal wings). Although this is complete dreaming-in-bath on my part, who is to say the truly flying yacht will not appear soon ... and legally and honestly obliterate the record. I'm surprised the Russians aren't doing this already (maybe they are) since they have decades of knowledge and experience from powered versions.
Seditious Sid only needs flaps in the single main wing beam to make it remain airborne ... I'm giving it serious thought, Chris, fantasy and democracy rules, eh?

 

Note 1:

In the example above, it used wind & water to create potential energy. Gravity is used to convert potential energy to kinetic energy (speed).

Note 2:

Full or mostly "Flying" boats have huge advantages at high speeds in dealing with chop. By the way, I do not consider foiling (Hydrptere etc) to be flying. Flying uses air flow over wings for most of the craft lift. One of my preferred choices for prototype testing would be very close to a "flying" boat (more info below). However, even though the airfoil supports more than 50% of boat weight, there would be 3 planning surfaces loaded just enough to maintain contact for stability. You will note in the text below, that I am somewhat paranoid when it comes to stability. Self preservation tendency I guess.

Layout would be somewhat similar to the V39 Albatross recently noted but smaller and single tack (convertible direction when assembled). Main (vertical) wing directly over a main hull. The main wing would be one piece, highly cambered, slightly twisted and non-flapped. A large (similar in total area to the main wing) horizontal “crossbeam” airfoil extends to the leeward. The main hull uses forward and aft planning surfaces similar to Sailrocket. All Planning surfaces are angled to create side load and reduce forces on dagger board.

Weight is concentrated to the windward. No guy wires or stays on the boat (potentially attach the initial span of the horizontal strut/wing ~25% up the main wing for structural reasons). Leeward ama provides lift via planning. Vertical load on leeward ama provides feedback in to angle of attack for overhanging leeward wing segment (again for stability). If needed, ballast is taken on fore and/or aft of the pilot just enough for light main hull contact with water (again for stability).

For my size of craft (small), the angle of attack on main wing is controlled by a main sheet that is connected to foot pedals. Constant modulation of main wing angle of attack is used for stability (keeping main hull from being lifted in gusts). This type of thing allows semi-automatic near instantaneous adjustments. The high speed wind surfers pull with their arms, but pushing with both feet provides much more power. Fore/aft weight balance and CG are important for pitch stability (and avoidance of aeronautical escapades).

 

Flad, for crazies who think like you, check out this excellent site of Fred Monsonnec's: http://foils.wordpress.com/
I can see what you're describing but an image or two would be better. Compared to your radical, one way tack boat, Seditious Sid is quite conventional.

 

Great. How did the glider get off the ground and to a suitable altitude where it could then begin to store this energy on its own?

Gravity rules in your example and is the Achilles heel of the design type. If the craft can't get off the ground, or water, on its own, then it is using stored energy not derived from the wind.

When I lived in Europe, I used to spend a lot of time at the local German glider port and never once did I see a glider get airborne on its own. It was tow plane or powered winch that did the initial work.

Bottom line will be that once someone does something along these lines, the big boys will simply rewrite the rules to specify that the beast needs to be primarily waterborne as a craft. They establish a measuring function and applicants will have to submit a complete proposal which will be scrutinized by folks from appropriate scientific communities.

It's kinda fun to think about being a smart aleck, but sooner, or later, someone will take away the fun part of it and turn it into real work.

 

Given that it is not even close to "sailing" there is no reason to work out the details. However, to fly like a kite could be achieved by deploying with additional lifting surface between wing and fuselage similar to furling sails.

Again, it was just a concept to show that any form of gliding through the course is really just using stored energy for propulsion and as such would therefore be seen as CHEATING of the "No question about it" fashion.


And for anyone calling me crazy, I resent that. Please use the "mad scientist" label - it is much more fun.