Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[toesupwa]

The US Springer rules say "A flat rudder of optional shape cannot have an area greater than 4 square inches"

So i guess you coud have more than one rudder as long as the area in total doesnt exceed the '4 square inches'...

But.. my (mine and the wifes) Springers with a standard 4 square inch rudder will turn 180 in a little over the length of the hull!.

[Arrow5]

Already we need a Philadelphia Lawyer to interpret the rules :(   Toes says short 180s on a single and if I read the rules correctly they do say "THE rudder", singular !  It isnt Formula 1 guys lets stick to the original simple and easy. If we start looking for loopholes already maybe we should forget the whole idea. :'(

[kendalboatsman]

Too bad about the move Clive , I hope it was for money !

It was for love, although wages are better (about 25% more) down here than in Kendal. I miss the hills and the lakes. Nothing to compare round here without travelling some distance.

Rules wise I am in agreement with the US rudder system so that is OK with me. 7.2v works well for me as an ex 1/10 buggy racer and currently a collector of them.

Clive

[Arrow5]

Best of both worlds then...missing the hills.  So an excuse to head back up for a weekend of "Springering" ??

[portside II]

arrow5 the reason for the question on the rudders is that on the rc groups site this photo show's a springer with three rudder configuration

and the internals are

daz

[Tug Man]

As shown in this picture a 4 inch sq. rudder is what is allowed for competition.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=843720
A salmon tail design is allowed for the rudder. It does seem to help.

Don

[Arrow5]

Yes I`ve seen that one and the other with two rudders, one in front of the prop and one behind. Said to help when turning while going astern.  I`m not sure if they are "legal" but they don`t seem to be in the spirit of the simple everyman/woman/kids boat. I wouldn't mind doing a stern-wheeler or a tank landing craft or a BW dredger/crane/workboat just because of the barge shape. If it isn`t a Springer we`d all put a pointy bow and make them a bit more like a real conventional boat etc etc. BTW how about the foam-core one posted somewhere, not wood EEEK. I can see the purist boaties screaming at that deviation from the norm. I have a lot of bluefoam left over from a previous build and thought of hot-wire cutting a Springer hull and skinning it with obechi veneer and glassed. It would take a fraction of the time to make compared to even a quick-build wooden one. You`ve guessed I`m an aeromodeller not really a boatie.

[portside II]

can't fault you arrow5 i am in the process of building another coaster (5 foot long) out of foam and covering the hull with pollyester resin and tissue .
The work boat is also on my mind as i have a rc crane what needs a platform to opperate from ,yours would be a lot quicker made from blue foam though.
daz

[Tug Man]

RC Crane? Could you tell me a bit about it? I am currently building the Model Slipways crane kit.

Don

[portside II]

now dont get too excited ,it's one of those ready built ones from the hobby store about 1:12th scale .It's been sat on the shelf in the workshop about a year and with summer around the corner would look nice floating around the pond .
daz

[chingdevil]

I will put the Puffer aside and have a go at building one, timber on order as we speak.

The other Brian

[Arrow5]

Will it be a Spruffer then  ?

[chingdevil]

Now this plan is easier to understand, the other plans I have seen are in old money. Tim is it OK to take a of copy this??

The other Brian

[toesupwa]

The plan looks good Wombat, especially for those that cant understand 'old money' measurement.

Are 1 1/2 inch props not available in Great Britain?, 38mm is close if imperial sizes are not available.

A Springer, to get it to the waterline, will handle two 6v 4.5mah gel cells. With a 7.2v pack, you will have to add LOTS of ballast to bring it down to the waterline. With twin gel cells, you also get the advantage of loads of running time, mine runs for nearly 2 hours from one charge.

[toesupwa]

Rules wise I am in agreement with the US rudder system so that is OK with me. 7.2v works well for me as an ex 1/10 buggy racer and currently a collector of them.

Just thought i would add...

My Springer takes two 6v 4.5mah gel cells plus ballast (approx 10 oz) to get it to sit down on the waterline. With a 7.2v 'car' pack, you will need to add loads of ballast to get it to sit down to the waterline
Another advantage with gel cells over a 7.2v pack, is that you get a far longer running time per charge. My Springer runs for some 2 hours on one charge.

[wombat]

Hi Guys,

Feel free Brian - I am thinknig that the plans should be in the public domain except for commercial use (if you are going to make money out of it then something should be paid to someone like the RLNI). I am planning expand the plans to include motor mounts and things and standard mountings for baqtteries and put the plans out in a more usable form. I will also make up cutting plans for all the piece parts defined. This should make a nice standard hull that someone can do as an easy project. I will also try to get them in an easier to use form - probably a PDF, though my PDF writer was spitting its dummy and making it difficult for me to get a PDF.

What would be good is if anyone builds from the plans asa they develop, the information on the build can be fed back to give a resource to make it as easy as possible for others to build the models.

I am going to ressurect the "FLoatingWonbat" webiste over Easter to act a resource on this, so we can publish plans and rules and things together based on the discussion over here on Mayhem.

Toesupwa, thanks for the comments - gel-cell would overcome the ballast problem - this is good to know. Anything to make the build simpler to handle. Hmmm, possibiities for an endurance class........ I suggested a 35mm prop as it seemed close to 1.5" - though 40mm would be as good. This would be coupled to a 5" M4 propshaft and then to the motor (cheap and cheerful).

Tim the Wombat

[kendalboatsman]

I visited Bob's Models yesterday for my Balsa so I can start building a Springer over the Easter weekend. Will have to "borrow" the 385 motor I set aside for my PBR build, mind you spent some time yesterday contemplating a scale water jet drive at 1/24 so might end up taking the shaft out of the PBR anyway.

Clive :)

[Bradders]

I have merged the topics and will try to consolidate them a bit as I have been getting queries etc about the definitive rules.

Hopefully we will end up with a plan in Imperial and Metric but both, but having a standard motor, power etc.

So the British Mayhem rules (if you all agree) are:
Construction
Size 18" (460mm) long, 8" (200mm) wide hull profile as per plans. Construction material, anything, any weight. No sharp corners on hull edge to stop damage to other boats in combat 
Superstructure
There must be a superstructure above the decks Min size 4"x4"x4" (100mm x 100mm x 100mm) whole or in parts, other than that whatever you like, tugs, warships, tanks, house, duck, sailing, no puffers!
Drive
Motor will be 540 (Speed 600) or less, any gears reductions clutches etc allowable but must not be used to steer the boat in any way. Any propshaft type Single propeller 11\2 inch (38mm) Dia.
Power
Max battery voltage 7.2v any battery type
Steerage
Any rudder arrangement including nozzles allowed, any shape or quantity however, max surface area (fixed or moving) not to exceed 4 Sq inches or 25 Sq cm.
 
 
 

[wombat]

Don't thionk I do agree, but depends what we want to achieve.

Will try to open up my ideas later

Tim

[chingdevil]

Hi Tim
I have not yet started to cut any timber but I will be working to your plan. It is much easier to read than others I have seen, I will let you know how it goes.

The other Brian

[Arrow5]

Why no Puffers ?  Is this to be an English thing ?

[wombat]

Hi Brian,

Hang fire a little - if we set a LOA for the rules as 460mm then my plan does not meet that - the LOA is 450mm. This is because I took the 18" of the original and used a spacing of 25mm for the construction lines. If we go for 460mm which is closer to the original, we will have to remark up the original - this is no biggie - maybe I will do that update for giggles.

Alternatively, we could say something like:

Hull to meet either the US or Metric Springer plans.

I think that we need to decide what we want to achieve with the rules - do we want a set of rules which give nominally similar boats. If we do, I think we need to be more definitive.

To keep in with the spirit of the original I think we should standardise on a prop size - I would say 35mm or 40mm with a maximum of three blades. THis will result in a smaller motor - say a 380 or 400

Power - maximum 7.2V agreed. All boats to be ballasted to a defined waterline.

I think we could have 2 classes:

Restricted - all rules apply, this gives a more level playing field
Unrestricted - the basic hull outline is to be used, but more freedom in drive - bigger motors, korts, bigger props. Though I would say nothing extending below the lowest part of the main hull

I wonder if we should make superstructure fully optional - though if no superstructure is provided a deck and hatch must be included.

TtW

[Arrow5]

Please children , no bickering. As the orignal poster in this thread all I wanted to know was "Is anyone building Springers in UK?"  IMHO the rules are there, why change them ?  Metric ? It is only a measurment, it could be fractions of a league, or a rod or a chain. Kort nozzles, water jets, multiple rudders etc.,  it aint a Springer if it isnt a Springer.  It is not as if we`d got a Ford Mustang from the US and HAD to put a Jaguar engine in it.  The basic design isnt so American that we Brits cant stand to look at it and have to change it. The motors, batteries, radios are just universal standard boat modelling gear available everywhere. But my final complaint and the moderator will I`m sure post some pictures for me is the last straw. I say the only thing we should change is from the waterline up.  End of rant.

[Arrow5]

Very rational Wombie, but give me a good reason for ANY changes. Optional superstructure, I hope you mean optional style not a "Flatty" ie just a hatch lid. Surely there are plenty of rulers and measuring tapes in inches still available.

[wombat]

Nobody is bickering but were trying to have a civilised discussion.

<quote>IMHO the rules are there, why change them ?</quote>
Because there are issues in transferring them from one zone to another - for example the US rules say a 1.5" prop - so do we decide to use the nearest metric equivalent or do we insist that to meet the rules we have to get props specially made or imported.

<quote>Metric ? It is only a measurment, it could be fractions of a league, or a rod or a chain.</quote>
<quote>Surely there are plenty of rulers and measuring tapes in inches still available.</quote>

There speaks someone who has not had to deal with different measurements systems. If you are happy to put up with awkward conversions then fine, but if you are trying to get a simple system suitable for beginners, then you have to make the measurements as simple as possible unless you can provide full size templates. The point of my suggestions is to make it as simple as possible - the fact that we are looking at the thing suggests we see the value and the strength of the design, but there are issues to be resolved if we are to make it in the UK what it is in the US because of differences in details.

TtW