+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,227

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Lemke View Post
    Claudio -
    thanks for doing the math on the NANO comparison. It saved me a bunch of work since I can't find my notes of displacement and stability. They are around here somewhere - just couldn't find them on first try. Wife says I need to clean up and organize. Who am I to say "no" to her "suggestions? [Big Smile]

    Perhaps one of these days, I might get excited about the "FOOTY" class. In the meantime, I have a 2 meter catamaran that is calling my name and waiting for me to get the templates onto the building board ----before Christmas appears. "Oh My"

    Thanks again for doing the math and results.

    Hi Dick,

    there is no much calculations, just simple considerations when starting calculating a new model design, the Bernoulli law is left aside to avoid further complications.

    The point, I probably missed, is that when the model is getting small, the materials and components are becoming a predominant percentage for the construction. To counteracts this aspect it is necessary to use larger bulb to met the stability limit.
    Imagine a boat weighting 1000g and having 150g of bulb against another of 1000g and 650g of bulb !
    Cheers

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,227

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    OK Dick,

    lets talk about a Footy for a moment and see what it is needed to sail 'normally'.

    Here below the ESTEREL 4 calculations.

    It start with the general formula in blue that is composed of two parts, heeling force and righting force
    Followed by the list of parameters and continuing with the proper calculations in Red, last data is the Bulb weight.

    From the drawing:

    Wind that day was blowing at >10kt.
    The Hull Displacement of 529g
    The Sail Area of 1150cm²
    The Design Bulb of 303g
    The ratio is not very high since 303 / 529 = 57.2% - could be far better if > 62/63%.

    The drawing contains also the formula using the Bernoulli Law and Righting arms at 30° of heel, therefore the distance from CE to LCB and from LCB to Bulb CG are included.

    The calculation shall provide at the end the BULB weight needed for the sailing conditions set above.

    No difficult to apply the same simple calculations for different Sail Area and Wind Speed (always in m/s ²).

    The results obtained with 5.5m/s Wind Speed is that the Bulb shall weight 401g while the design was fixing it at 303g.

    Not possible to increase the Bulb Weight without sinking the boat. The amount of sinking (in mm) depends from the Water Plan surface.

    Two possibilities: decrease the Sail Area or sailing with lower Wind Speed.


    The original design is already critical since the Weight Ratio is only of 57.2%.

    To increase performances, one should develop a larger Hull Displacement, not an easy task for a small boat like the Footy and his Box.

    Assuming, nevertheless, a Footy design with a DSPL of 650g and 400g Bulb, the Ratio will be 61.5% .
    Construction weight little bit more than 226g since larger Hull/Deck.

    If Wind will increase above 12kt the boat will heels more...and "nose down" not very far away !

    This simple formula do not account for sea waves and gust !

    Certainly my ESTEREL 4 Footy is not the Queen of Seas, but among the others is not bad if sailing up to 8kt and not more !!!

    This simple formula can be applied to any model !
    Cheers
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	ESTER 4 - Junk Sail.jpg‎
Views:	24
Size:	207.5 KB
ID:	16378  
    Last edited by claudio; 06-03-2017 at 02:28 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    919

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    My 3D-printed Footy weighs 482g ready to sail without rig.

    The bulb weight is 350g of the 482 total.

    My C rig is 24g, B is 34g, and A is 40g. The A rig mast height is 825mm.

    With C rig, then, the ballast ratio is 69%, with B it's 68%, and with A it's 67%.

    Though I haven't built a Nano yet, I see no reason why similar results can't be achieved with a boat in the 725-800g range.
    Last edited by mudhenk27; 06-03-2017 at 05:27 PM. Reason: spelling error

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,227

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    So all together you managed to build the full Footy with 172g ! My Esterel 4 was 226g Can you provide the details of the construction weight budget as I did it ?
    Where is the floating line ?
    Tanks
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	ESTER 4 - Plan.jpg‎
Views:	10
Size:	255.2 KB
ID:	16379  
    Last edited by claudio; 06-03-2017 at 05:43 PM. Reason: added Esterel4 plan

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    919

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Happy to, Claudio.

    Footy construction weights:

    3D-printed hull with thinned epoxy wash inside...40g.
    3D-printed fin with 2 internal carbon tubes...15g.
    3D-printed rudder with carbon tube and aluminum tiller...8g.
    servo cassette...24g.
    receiver...8g.
    3 AAA lithium batteries with plastic holder...32g.
    carbon mast tube and aluminum rudder tube...5g?

    subtotal construction weight...132g.
    bulb from 12oz trolling sinker...350g.

    total without rig 482g.

    Footy.pdf

    As you said, construction weights are critical in smaller boats. Being larger than a Footy doesn't mean that it will be easier to build a Nano, though. On the contrary, I think it will be a bit more difficult because of the need for somewhat larger servos and the extra weight associated with reinforcing larger parts. That said, I think the Nano should perform well with a ballast ratio of 60%...a higher ratio could be an opportunity for a good builder to get an edge on the competition.
    Last edited by mudhenk27; 06-03-2017 at 06:41 PM. Reason: added profile drawing

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Logan, UT
    Posts
    179

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Quote Originally Posted by claudio View Post
    Hi Gio,
    what do you mean by 'box' ?
    MM has some limitations and is a toy for me, but most of them are compensated by the low 'aspect ratio' of the Sail Plan with the Main Luff of 760mm against 900 mm of the NANO.
    The weight ratio do not play in favor for this model either if the Bulb is "apparently" weighting only 360g against a total weight of 860g. 41.8% is a very low ratio ! Far from 65% for an acceptable stability.
    Is floating and cheap...what ask more !
    Remember, waves and wind cannot be scaled.
    I do not consider it a benchmark.
    Benchmark for me means performances to be met, something to aim for !
    NANO idea is born for a 3D printing, what will happen when exposed to 12kt of wind I do not know.
    My posts were limited to explain what are for me the basic considerations for a stable boat.
    Cheers
    Sorry, by "box" I mean that it has to fit in a box that has the lowest shipping charges or that can be maximized inside a shipping container..... Shipping and handling charges are taken into consideration when designing and producing a new product especially when it has a "niche" market like a RC boat .....

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,227

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Hi Gio,
    Understood now what you mean. If not wrong, an Italian Editor offered an 100cm long RC Model called "Luna Rossa" where the ABS Hull was shipped in two parts. I suppose that the mast was also treated in the same way. Pretty sure that the shipping costs were predominant over the total not only because of the length.
    Cheers

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,227

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Hi Bill,
    at the buoy the total weight difference between the two models is 529 - 522 = 7g
    Instead you managed to integrate an heavier bulb (+47g) "probably" because of a larger immersed volume !
    It may be larger if your hull is also diagonal.
    see pics
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	2Footy.jpg‎
Views:	15
Size:	119.6 KB
ID:	16381  

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    919

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    I don't see how the immersed volume of our designs could be different, Claudio.

    Displacement is displacement. If both boats float on their lines at the same weight, then they must displace the same volume.

    As you indicated, the draft of my boat is deeper than yours, but what you didn't have is the view that would show the narrower beam. So your boat has shallow draft/wider beam, mine has deep draft/narrower beam...the classic trade-off decision. But both have the same displacement. I didn't, therefore, get the heavier bulb by increased immersed volume...I got it by reducing the construction weight compared to yours. If you reduced the construction weight of your boat to 132g, you could have the same bulb weight as mine, and your boat would float on the same line as it does now.

    You gain some form stability from the wide beam, I get it from the heavier bulb. Which is more effective would need to be seen by match racing.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,227

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    As said the overall difference at the buoy is only 7 grams, but the weights are differently distributed.
    Since the Esterel Water Plan is 239cm², the 350g bulb could be used by accepting to increase the draft by 2mm and passing from 29mm to 31mm.
    Of course the weight will increase to and the ratio will be 60%.
    Last edited by claudio; 06-04-2017 at 09:14 AM. Reason: added text

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Announcing the exciting new NANO class
    By mudhenk27 in forum New Classes
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: Yesterday, 05:04 AM
  2. RG65 MicroMagic
    By martin in forum General Discussion (RG65)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 01:08 PM
  3. MicroMagic fun and LOTS of noobies questionS
    By wismerhell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 07-27-2005, 03:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts