+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,283

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Back to PICO design :

    Checking the theoretical capacity to withstand the Wind Speed at 30 of heel.

    Although having reduced the Main Luff height to 850mm, the LCE, the LD and Sail Area are still the critical parameters unless more weight is dedicated to the Bulb that imply a larger/deeper Hull and heavier model !

    New technology for internal supports as well Lithium dry Cells and carbon hull/deck, may help to better distribute weights.

    Under the presents conditions the boat cannot support more than 9knots of wind without increasing dangerously the Heeling Angle.

    Claudio
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	PICO-CH3.jpg‎
Views:	21
Size:	160.7 KB
ID:	16382  

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,283

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    A step forward for a wind of 12kt, the required bulb is of 582g. Added to the actual 330g of construction, we are above 900g for 500mm long boat.
    Sail area was reduced to 1095cm and keel increased to 240mm.

    If some one whish to scale down a RG65 from 655mm to 500mm length, will be surprised !

    Ideally a 500mm boat should weight 550g and the bulb 350g while the full construction shall be within 200g.
    If the Footy was constructed with 132g, not excluded to make it with 200g !
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	PICO-CH4.jpg‎
Views:	24
Size:	164.5 KB
ID:	16383  
    Last edited by claudio; 06-04-2017 at 12:10 PM. Reason: added text

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    248

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Having never been at a race, is there anything that says you HAVE to race with an A suit of sails?
    So you design your boat around a lower luff length, which would drop the COE (if I'm not mistaken) and mean that you could then have a shorter keelfin / lighter bulb.
    Sort of like when they changed from ridiculously large displacement engines to smaller engines with better handling?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    921

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Andrew, the Nano provisional class rule allows 3 rigs.

    Typically, the A rig is used until the wind makes handling the boat difficult...trouble tacking or broaching downwind, etc. Then the smaller B rig is used, then ultimately the C rig.

    It is up to the designer to decide how large each rig should be based on expected local wind conditions for racing. For example, winds on ponds in the USA are typically lighter than those in the UK, so I might make rigs larger than my UK friends unless I intend to travel.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,283

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Andrew,
    Is not a question to race or not, the point is that lowering the main sail it also lower the CE position and this is helping to increase the lateral stability. Better would be to increase also the Fin depth.
    Cheers

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,283

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    I do have revisited the PICO design in order to reduce the construction weights as well checking the max Wind Speed that can be met up to an Heel angle of 30.
    My dear friend Pierre Raynaud indicated the Arm servo peculiarity and found out that it is more complicated than what I was use to.

    Since Servos are one of the major contributors to the total weight, this analysis was directed to the servos optimization.
    The Bulb is also a critical item.

    I told myself that if the total achievable weight would stay below 550g and the bulb at 350g this would permit a ratio of >63% and providing a decent model for sailing.
    Unfortunately this combination have others limitations concerning the max Wind Speed sustainable.

    Both calculations are in pics below.

    The construction remains again a week point since the total weight is above the design data with 580g and the max acceptable Wind Speed is limited to 4m/s equal to 7.7knots.

    This limited performance is nevertheless achieved because the Sail Luff is of 750mm and lower CE.

    IMO, larger Sail Area will impose larger Bulb and Boat weight.

    If some one is capable to produce a full boat for less than 200g will be a good achievement although the acceptable Wind Speed will remain below the 5.0 m/s or 10 knots.

    Deeper Fin would help !
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	arm1100cm.jpg‎
Views:	27
Size:	223.2 KB
ID:	16384   Click image for larger version

Name:	PICO-CH5.jpg‎
Views:	29
Size:	161.4 KB
ID:	16385  

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    248

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    this thread has some brilliant info.
    Thanks for putting numbers in the servo picture - I never would have been able to figure out where to start looking at those equations :P

    I've got Delftship and freeship installed on PC's now and all these numbers/coefficients are finally - slowly - making sense.
    I had never realised that all these co-efficent numbers are ratio's and not values as such (not a great maths brain by a long shot) but I can start to see the inter-relationships of them now.

    Claudio - you have mentioned that the the M-class has the 70% ratio of bulb vs total weight and it would appear that it is a good benchmark to try achieve.
    How did the M-class get that figure? Just trial and error over many years?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,283

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    About servos and calculations there some variants as the ways a Servo Arm is used.
    For a new model, the servo choice is part of the weights game where one like to have the larger power for wind speed and less weight as possible.
    Hope the figure presented are of some help to understand what are the limitations, the first one being the construction weight against the ballast that can be compensated with hull beam and draft.

    About benchmarks, the class M has funny story concerning the Sail Area, but this is part of the heritage history.
    The Rules call for 0.5161m, but this specification is refers to the simple triangles composing the Main and Jib.
    There are other formulas that define the additional surfaces and for a Rig A is not rare to get a real total surface of 7200cm.

    Instead on the weight side, in modern Class M the displacement is averaged at 4.4kg and the bulb around 3.2kg, thus 3.2/4.4 = 72%. This give room of 1.2kg for the construction.
    Good modelers can manage to reduce the construction weight to 4.35kg and some time even less, in this case : 3.2/4.35 = 73.5%. This is possible mainly because of the Carbon tissue, and modern Servos and Battery. I have seen a class M for 4.250kg. Was supposed to be manipulated with care !!

    Excluding the RMG, in the past, the most common servo was the HS-725HB of Hitec (replaced by 785HB) that weighted 110g for 13kg.cm at 6.0V, today for 65g you get Servo Arm of 20/25kg.cm.
    I can adds in the benchmark list the Class AC120 that compared to the Class M is 9cm shorter, but the Sail Area can go up to 8000cm. Extremely fast and stable model. Average Sail Area 7800cm.
    Up to now I do believe that the Class M is a benchmark overall, but the IOM or the RG65 are also benchmarks within their respective dimensions.
    Hope that ESTEREL"45" will be the New Benchmark ! heheh!!
    Cheers
    Last edited by claudio; 06-07-2017 at 04:46 AM. Reason: added text

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toulouse (Fra)
    Posts
    3,283

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    A design trial in line with what written before. Swing Rig used to keep simple, efficient and lighter as well.

    DSPL 611g
    Bulb 380g
    Constr. 231g (to be of concern)
    ratio 62.2%
    Sail plan 1100cm (could be increased to 1250cm)
    Main Luff 750mm
    LWL shorten to 480mm

    The Hull is not very wide and there is some margin to increase the Volume in case is required although the weight will increase.
    Personally I would prefers to keep the total weight as low as possible but depend from the construction.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	PICO-1c.jpg‎
Views:	22
Size:	199.4 KB
ID:	16386  

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    921

    Default Re: MICROMAGIC vs NANO

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCF6549.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	780.9 KB
ID:	16387

    Claudio, are you sure you aren't being too conservative? My Footy A rig (based on Claudio Vigada's Easy Rig III) is 1910cm2. I'm sure won't stand up in 12kts, but I don't see why it would have to.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Announcing the exciting new NANO class
    By mudhenk27 in forum New Classes
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-24-2017, 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