the latest design using a Blade F16 hull

LOA 16' using a Blade F16 hull from Matt McDonald of Falcon,LLC in Port Canaveral, Fl.and:
Hull weight(with cockpit) 73lb(actual weight+ cockppit mod)
SA 160 sq. unstayed squaretop rig,carbon mast- 35lb
Foils-17lb (foil assist approx 70% lift depending on crew weight)
12' wing,all up-20lb
movable ballast-160 lb
motor,controls,battery (25lb est)

----------------------
SUB Total=330lb (405lb for Turbo self-righting version with fixed 75lb ballast in bulb integrated with "foil assist"foils)
crew=120-180lb
TOTAL = 510lb
====================
RM:
160@ 9' =1440ft.lb
20 @ 4' = 80ft.lb

------------------------------
Total= 1520ft.lb

HM@ 1lb/sq.ft. pressure = 1600 ft.lb.
------------------------------------





This is with crew contributing virtually nothing to RM. A side seat option allows the crew to sit slightly outboard but still in a relatively fixed position-for ablebodied crew only and it adds RM.
There is no guarantee that even after testing the skinny hull turbo version will be suitable for disabled sailors-only extensive testing will prove whether or not that is possible. IF that is possible it REQUIRES the selfrighting option.
==============





This thing will trailer with the wing pivoted fore and aft and will require the same room a WETA tri does to launch rigged at a launch ramp. In Florida the boat would launch using a dolly like a cat does and that will make it easy. Keep in mind how heavy the 2.4 meter is and it is successfully launched in many areas. This boat is much lighter than that-maybe about the same as a Bongo-and about the same as a Hobie 16. Launching will be no problem with a dolly on a beach and if the ramp is wide enough the boat can be launched right off the trailer.

The BOAT WILL NOT BE CARTOPABLE.

The lead in the cart that slides athwhartship will be in approx. 20lb segments an will be REMOVABLE. There is no reason to sail with max ballast on a light day.

A production version would have a reefable rig.

This version will not be the first version which will be my 22 footer which is being worked on now. It will be done as soon as possible.

Additions include front twin 50 cals so any one who claims I am not a sailing vessel can eat my lead

horsepetunias

Heres a new rendering of my new favourite bi-foiler the KissKut.



Here are the numbers:

LOA 4.5 m=14.7'
Beam 4.5m=14.7'
SA=9sq.m=97 sq.ft
weight est.=40kg=88lb.
Price-an amazing(!) $42,000US no peoples foiler if this price is accurate.

I see some problems with veel heel-if anybody else does and can articulate it I'd sure like to know. Appears I have the wing angle slightly too low-that means max veel heel would be greater than this while maintaining the same clearance between buoyancy pod and water as between hull and water. I still don't like the twin vertical struts or the 7'(est) long main foil. A couple of things are immediately obvious: there is too much mainfoil area* and along with the twin struts that results in a drastic increase in wetted surface with veal heel when keeping the leeward tip the proper distance below the surface.

* estimated 3.5 sq. ft.; foil loading with 320lb crew=93lb/sq.ft. Moth foil loading=160lb.per sq.ft. approx. This foil could be shortened to approx. 4' with a 6" chord. and ha
ve the same foil loading as a Moth and that is with TWO people on board KissKut. That would help everything... but it would be even better when jumped with manual control and dual midship wands.

Some mothies think it won't work. To that I say horsepetunias

Questions and answers

1) Do you think that a bi-foiler could be designed to be significantly easier to sail than a Moth?
Technically a moth is a sub category of bi-foiler, so, logically speaking, the question is do I think that a bi-foiler can be faster than a bi-foiler, ergo if we apply the atlernative, can a moth be designed to be faster than a bi-foiler. well no because it is one, so then the question becomes can a moth be faster than a moth, well yes a moth can be designed to be faster than a moth, however by definiton it is a moth, so it can't be. In summary, a bi-foiler cannot be designed to be faster than itself.

2) Do you think a forward wand position is critical or could a midship or aft wand could have some potential?
the forward positioning of the wand is absolutley critical. If the wand is not held tightly then an expelleramus spell will easliy disengage the wand from your hand. Storing the wand aft could solve this issue however it would impact the wand users ability to cast spells.

3) Do you see any potential value in a control system that links the movement of the mainfoil flap and rudder foil flap(or rudderfoil angle of incidence) together in an adjustable(mixable) way?
I think that any system that links the two foils together, say using some 2" x 1" tiber) into a single, unified foil would cause an excessive amount of drag as it is pulled through the water under the boat, so no. I like the idea of the mix tape though.

4) Do you think a bi-foiler could be faster if altitude was controlled manually(no wand)-even if it took lots of practice to get it right?
Well spell casting does take a lot of practice to get things right, and you can cast faster if your attitude is done manually.

5) Do you think in some future time the idea of intentionally jumping a bi-foiler(not necessarily a Moth) would be feasible-or catch on if it could be done safely, repeatedly?
Jumping is fiesable and necessary. When trying to escape persuit from the Hazzard county sherrif, jumping over the nearest river with a washed out bridge into the next county has shown to be able to be done every week for a number of years.

6) Do you think a keelboat, with the right numbers, could ever foil?
Didn't that Americas cup boat America II have a foil winged keely thing, so YES.

7) Where do you see bi-foiler development,outside the Moth Class, heading?
I think that bi-folding chairs were well developed before the moth class ever came along.

9) What is your opinion on a variable geometry main foil-a foil design where the area could be reduced under sail(or increased for that matter)?
I am sorry, I didn't pass geometry at school and will have to pass on this one.

10) What is your opinion of adding wand+flap altitude control to a surface piercing foilers main foils?
I don't have any surface piercings, as my mother won't let me get them, she says they will make me look cheap.

11) What do you think of adding buoyancy pods -a bit larger than the ones on current foilers- to help make it easier to learn to sail a monofoiler?
Why do we need bouyancy if the boat doesn't touch the water??

12) Did you know that several top Rave(16' multifoiler) sailors modified their boats to MANUAL altitude, MANUAL FOIL RM(roll) and MANUAL PITCH control which proved faster in racing-replacing the existing wand system?
I haven't been to a rave in years. At the last one I met a girl called Jenny who sold me a foil, she turned out to be a real mighty bitch, so I think that is what you mean, not manual pitch.

13) What is your opinion of adopting the "shared lift" concept first pioneered in the ARC 21 cat (and now with Mirabaud) to allow a longer foil "footprint" for a given size monofoiler?
Well I think it is a good idea that people use the shared lift concept. It reduces green house emissions as there are less cars on the road whihc reduces your footprint.


14) What effect do you think changing the planform and aspect ratio of the Rush foilboard(air chair derivitive) foils would have on speed, jumping, and "ease" of sailing a foilboard?
I think that changing the plan and form of the asphalt patio is a great idea. I don't think that rusing forward in to a chair delivery is a smart thingm less speed and reducing the urge to jump in will make things easier.

Groupthinkers

I just want to welcome all my fellow Groupthinkers. There seems to be a misunderstanding. I think Sailing Anarchy should be a place where new ideas are discussed and where opinions out of the mainstream are tolerated and encouraged.

No way! Who ever came up with that lame ass idea doesn't know me. They will encourage you to say any thing you want BUT don't print any IDEAS that they don't understand, got it?

I talk about the first foiler in the US but don't have any pictures of it foiling. I must lying, right you brothers?

I bring up things nobody understands like some ratios and you know what?

They think I must be INSANE when I talk about "manual altitude control", "sportboat foiler", "a 60' Moth" or a powered up high fucking performance two person foiler!

AeroSKIFF

This boat was designed by me at about the time the first Moth foiled(1999). It was built( mostly by me) over a three year period at a cost of around $17,000.And it was a blast to pull it all together. Among the things tried on this thing for the first time(as far as I know-at least in the US) were:
1) square top jibs (That's right it sailed with more than one at once)
2) reefable camber induced main. ( No one had used those two words before in the same sentence)
3) manual control of the main. ( 'cause everyone else uses a bow monkey)
4) angled up foil tips(lots of dihedral)-as a hunch to allow crash free jumping. ( or should that be snap free 'cause I don't want the foil to break)
5) angled up extension tiller ends to allow physical leverage for manual hydrofoil control (and man they look cool)
6) virtually no hull-just a scaled up skyrider, or a scaled up ironing board. I had two designs-one with a high beam to length ratio hull and buoyancy pods,one like this. My thinking at the time was to try to find a solution to the rollovers and difficulty common to the Moth at that time.They they fix by having half a clue about boat handling. I chose the wrong design-this hull was a bitch in the short chop of the intercoastal and actually delayed the takeoff that I was dreaming about in marginal conditions. Big mistake because ,for me, light air take off is the whole ball game. Assuming that there is a game, which I am not so sure about.
7) retractable foils controlled from the cockpit. The concept of a centreboard case was a real break through.
8) partial span mainfoil and rudder foil flaps( foils built to my design by John Ilett. Johns company engineered the foil laminated to be strong enough to jump the boat. In otherwords, they are solid carbon and weigh a ton.
9) tapered mainfoil planform
10) fully adjustable angle of incidence of both foils while sailing(main foil system disabled initially). I was in a hurry so sailed without this IMPORTANT system-and I would not have tried to foil if I had realized how much easier it was with this system active.
11) trailerable with foils retracted.
12) all carbon/foam
-----------------
The boat foiled rather poorly because of the hull design (no light air takeoff) but mainly because the mainfoil manual control system had slack in it making it very difficult to control. I consider the boat a success for many reasons including the fact that even though it was difficult to control it did foil 1 cm off the water and never once crashed. It taught me that there was a huge potential in further developing manual altitude control and adding a new feature to the new boat(under development now): simultaneous control of main and rudder foil.

The extension tiller with the turned up ends worked real well, the reefable main worked ok and the square top jibs have potential. The retractable foil system worked perfectly.

The first aeroSKIFF was a great learning experience and as far as I know the first monofoiler scratch built and designed in the US. It will not be the last....

JUMP RIGHT IN

A boat designed to jump-particularly with a foil to cushion re-entry- is likely to be a lot of fun. Moths don't jump-intentionally- because they have wands. When a Moth gets high enough for the main foil to come out of the water the bungee pulls the wand all the way forward raising the back end of the flap resulting in a virtually instantaneous crash as the boat re-enters. This kind of crash happens often,particularly with bow mounted wands, in conditions where there are waves.




If I am correct in my assesment of the Howes foil the result of re-entry is likely to be more like the re-entry of a foilboard-and the jump done for the pure fun of it.

16-18' "Sit in" High Performance Dingh, - using on deck movable ballast

I have always wanted to sail a boat like a 2.4 Meter but with much higher performance. I suggested a concept years ago and wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on how to make something like this work.

As I envision it the wing+ballast is supported by trapeze wires-side to side movement would not require a whole lot of effort....



Just as a rough illustration here is a picture of a Melges 24 model fitted with a "trapeze power ballast system". The battery was part of the sliding ballast and that could be done on a full size version.



The idea I had was to use a molded "wing" that would have ballast slide inside it to give large RM-similar to a two handed dinghy where one of the crew is on a trapeze. The ballast could be moved by hand, foot power or electrically. The boat might have a small fixed keel. The ends of the "wing" would be slightly larger in section to provide extra buoyancy. Each side of the wing would be supported by a "trapeze" wire making moving the whole wing(and the ballast inside it) fairly easy since it all moves horizontally.


The "wing" on the model is just two carbon tubes that form a track for the ballast to slide on. To me, a molded wing
on the fullsize version would have a number of advantages including lower aerodynamic drag, buoyancy and it could be built with a slight curve.

The idea is to sit in the boat like a 2.4 meter but plane early and fast.