Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: London pseudo n00b  (Read 6126 times)

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
London pseudo n00b
« on: July 07, 2016, 09:49:58 pm »

I say pseudo because boats aren't really my thing - I've been doing RC 4x4 builds. And then I took my son for a ride on a DUKW, and decided I need to ferry my trucks across water.

So here I am. Hello  :-)

Took some time, but I now know exactly what I'm going to build - a WWII US Higgins boat (LCVP). Obtained (quite legally) a set of plans so I've a good idea how I'm going to build it (plasticard, mostly). It will be around the 1:10 scale mark, so ~1105mm long with a ~330mm beam. It must be able to carry 15 to 20 kg cargo (up to two 4x4 trucks). Being a landing craft it's not going to set speed records, but I'd like it to move at a reasonable clip without upending the cargo. It will be electric and have a functioning ramp.



Mostly I'd have just jumped in and made a start. However, even though I'm comfortable (happiest, actually) scratch-building with plasticard, and familiar with the electronics, I've little clue how to size components - things like motor and servo size, and bouyancy or balast requirements. Which is why I'm here. To learn, and I hope, share the progress and results of what I hope will be a semi-decent build!

 :}
Logged

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,892
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2016, 12:23:53 am »

The Wiki article says the displacement was 8200kg, light. So you're looking to build it to weigh (empty) 8.2kg. I see it could carry '8000lbs' of cargo. That's only 3.6kg, floating with your '20kg' sounds unlikely.


Andy
Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2016, 10:52:23 am »

Thank you, and... Andy, you're right!  O0

That said (and note that I'm still gathering the numbers), lets assume an RS540 motor (propulsion) is ~160g, FC280 (or similar, for winch) weighs ~40g. 300g for a 2S LiPo and ~70g for a waterproof servo. All of which, assuming an additional 1kg for ESC, RX and hardware and shafts, should be around 1.5kg. Based on previous experience with plasticard I'm guessing the boat itself won't be more than 1kg. So unladen, around 2.5kg to 3kg.

There's space in the hull and, to a lesser extent, the walls around the sides (there's probably a nautical term for them) for styrofoam or something like it, so I think the real answer lies somewhere between my 20kg and your 3.6kg. If it ends up only holding one vehicle at a time, so be it.

I need to run some tests  :-)
Logged

Tugtower

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 190
  • Owner of The RCMB Forum
  • Location: Workshop. S.Wales.UK
    • RCMB Forum
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2016, 01:11:01 pm »

My honest opinion on a model of the size stated little over 1m by 30cm will in no way be able to carry 20kg of dead weight and still function correctly.

Scaling things down from full size to model does not always give you the scaled down ''loads'' models are able to carry.

Displacement is different in a model compared to a full size machine, remember you can't scale WATER!

Plastic card will probably also not be a suitable material for a model of that size as your relying on the glue joints to hold under pressures (especially on the hull) and to hold weight.

Plastic card glue joints are quite tough when used on superstructures or static models but we have all knocked a model or two made of plastic card and split joints on the odd occasion and i expect your wanting to beach your machine to unload, thats a lot of area subject to damage and subsequently failure with the material your planning to use.
Plastic card cannot be reinforced with GRP
easily to add strength as it has a tendency to warp or melt when the epoxy is curing during its curing process, i could suggest body filler, but again similar issues as well as it can crack off the plastic under a knock making it useless.

This model needs to be build with a material more substantial, 3-4 mm ply would be a good starting point. joints can be reinforced easy enough with some GRP which add nothing but strength, also wood floats naturally which will give the model a little (a lot)more buoyancy over plastic as well as being a stronger material to take the knocks from use, its also a lot easier to repair,

As an ex rc car racer I've owned many of the cars available over the years from 8th, 10th, 12th 1:16th and 1:5th scales, including the tamiya tank & truck ranges,and my more recent Gmade r1 and Axiel Wraith both hitting the 3kg mark, only the 1:5th scale cars were anything close to 10kg in weight and most of those were actually around 7-8kg with engine and fuel tank, given the size of your planned boat, how can your cars be remotely close to 7.5- 10kg each at what looks to be at a guess 1:12 scale to fit 2 in the model?

So i ask why you need a model to hold 15-20kg of weight in the first place when the 2 cars you own shouldn't even hit the 7kg mark combined?

I wouldn't get to hooked up on weights of the mechanics, motors shaft, props, battery's etc, those things are required regardless, no amount of planning their weights will help you in making the model work.(unless you starting buying up huge 850-900+ size motors, which shouldn't even come anywhere near this model)

What you should focus on is what motor do you need to power the model correctly in regards to RPM, prop size/pitch and Voltage to run the motor at.

You can run a Brushed setup on a lipo, and with that said a Bushed motor setup would probably be the best solution as brushless motors  in a boat for going in reverse is not an easy feat, you can buy reversing esc for brushless but they are touchy at best,  with all brushless gear cooling is an issue and more so in a boat where the electronics are in a confined space with very little air flow, meaning you need to be adding water cooling to at least the ESC if going the bruhsless route.
 Where as the brushed motor counter part you can get away with no watercooling and no issues with forward and reverse.

Don't use rated 'turn' motors in a rc boat, the loads on a prop compared to a gear box are very different.

Sorry that's a lot of 'negativity' in my reply, but its sound advice from someone who knows a few things.

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2016, 02:02:18 pm »

Sorry not much time at the minute to reply - yours and Andy's posts are exactly the reason I'm here!
Logged

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,892
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2016, 02:20:06 pm »

Displacement is different in a model compared to a full size machine, remember you can't scale WATER!


We can't scale the viscosity of water, but the displacement directly follows a scale^3 rule. 8000lbs of mass => 8lbs at one-tenth scale.


Andy
Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,463
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2016, 02:38:56 pm »

Yes I would agree that it is better to understand what you have than thinking about powering the unknown   {-)

The vessel is a floating shoebox with little of any underwater dynamic shape..

So 1105 x 330 x 30 [estimated draft] = ~~730000 cubic mm or 7.3 kg vessel displacement

The world is now your oyster  :o

[2kg for the hull] +[2kg for motors & electronics & batteries] = 3.5kg carrying capacity O0 [@ the draft of 30 mm]

Derek
Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary [Retired]
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2016, 11:13:55 am »

Plastic card will probably also not be a suitable material for a model of that size as your relying on the glue joints to hold under pressures (especially on the hull) and to hold weight... ...3-4 mm ply would be a good starting point... ....the 2 cars you own shouldn't even hit the 7kg mark combined? ... What you should focus on is what motor do you need to power the model correctly in regards to RPM, prop size/pitch and Voltage to run the motor at.

Thank you for the comprehensive reply!! Besides being easier to cut, plywood makes sense as you say.

Car weight. Mine are 1:9 and 1:10 scale 4x4 crawlers. Some do indeed weigh up to 10Kg, even though in a competition lighter is without a doubt better, and a 10kg rig is rare. My Jeep weighs 4.5kg. Dual batteries and a brass roll cage. My scratch-built Ford Bronco Concept weighs almost exactly 3Kg which is good for the scale. A friend owns an 8Kg Mercedes G Wagon (why people do that is for another discussion). I tend to overspec by ~33% to accomodate the unexpected.



Motors. This is the big unknown for me, and what you suggest is thankfully inline with my preferences. I like brushed because they're cheaper, simpler, can be rebuilt and work when wet. How DO I choose a motor? And what about prop size? And number of blades? Is there a rule of thumb/scientific or other logical set of rules that determine an optimal selection?

So 1105 x 330 x 30 [estimated draft] = ~~730000 cubic mm or 7.3 kg vessel displacement

Forward draft is 66mm. Aft draft is 91mm. The length and width are less at the waterline than 1105 x 330mm, but I'm guessing total laden weight (boat + cargo) will be somewhere between 15 to 20kg. This will do.

Again, thank you for the considered responses. My biggest fear is doing something stupid out of inexperience. I'm actually expecting that. Also pretty sure my ignorance means I ask all the wrong questions  :embarrassed:
Logged

Tugtower

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 190
  • Owner of The RCMB Forum
  • Location: Workshop. S.Wales.UK
    • RCMB Forum
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2016, 04:18:30 pm »


We can't scale the viscosity of water, but the displacement directly follows a scale^3 rule. 8000lbs of mass => 8lbs at one-tenth scale.

Andy


Although your quite right in regards to displacement in scale i can't argue to facts....


 That is only based of the model being made of the same material as the full size, which is why i stated that a model will behave differently in terms of displacement.


A model made of scaled  ''2.5mm'' thick steel ( from 2.5cm" full size) compared to being made of lighter materials such as 2.5mm thick wood will naturally displace less... which is why ballast is added later which only then the displacement becomes true to scale with less needed for a heavier boat compared to a lighter machine where more is needed.


To which is why i made my original statement.


In this case, with the construction of this vessel in order to hold more weight, a reduction of dead weight ballast can be used allowing the model to hold more 'cargo' physical weight, as dead weight ballast can be substituted for weight in cargo.


This however dose leave an issues when using the model unloaded, to which suggestions can be made to counter, such as water tight chambers which could be flooded when the model is 'empty'.


This dose not however resolve issues of the counter balance when cargo is loaded as weight will be unevenly distributed, but i do believe that with a bit of fiddle enough ballast could be fixed in place as ''trim weight'' for when the vessel is loaded. 


Tweaking the waterline is also another trick to help in allowing for more cargo, although with this project not necessarily suitable given the fronts ramp which for many landing craft models can be a bit of a headache keeping water from flooding in should it sit lower in the water.

The argument is pedantic but its still valid.

As for motors, props and shafts...

Shafts are simple enough, i wouldn't use anything less then an M4 shaft, the length is determined by the space you have in the working section of your boat. so it needs to be long enough to exit the hull correctly, and hold a coupling of a length (again variable depending on the coupling), and the motor itself, so it all fits within the working space.

The prop should be if keeping to scale one of similar pitch and blade amount, which is why i suggested using an M4 shaft as prop ranges are higher.

However thats not always right for a model the prop is dictated by the boat, you may not get a 40mm 3 blade prop running at a set RPM from the motor to drive the boat adequately, to which you will have to 'experiment' which may be looking at things as 2 blade plain 40 or X 40 or larger sizes. ( i used 40mm props here as an example only)

The prop physical size is determined by the room under the hull, if you only have 15mm of clearance between shaft center and the base of the hull then you can only use a maximum of a 30mm prop ! if you have 25mm from shaft center then you can fit up to 50mm prop.

Prop thrust is also dictated by the motor RPM. different props act differently even if the RPM is the same between an 3 blade and a 2 blade which is mostly the blade pitch & blade size. ( i kept it simple here someone else can fill in the boring science)


So selecting the right motor and RPM is critical. 16,000 speed boat rpm is not necessarily going to thrust your model to hell, but then again 16,000 rpm maybe what you need to get the model of that size moving at a scale speed.


Until we know exactly what size prop you can fit and if your planning to keep with a scale version or the originals  a motor suggestion at this point can only be pure guess work.

At a very rough guess i would think a standard 540 size motor ( 1 per shaft ) would be adequate running on either a 2 or 3s lipo,( upping the voltage from 7.4 to 11.1 will increase the motors rpm)or a 6 or 12V Lead acid battery ( which can be used more for all day runs due to their MHA size and their weight can be used as part of the dead weight ballast.
 Run off a Mtronics 15amp esc (one per motor) or should there be no rudders for this model tank steering would be needed to control the model then i would suggest ACTions P94 unit would be perfect for the job and possibly the ACTion's power distribution board?, google '' The component shop'' for those.




Whoo fricking essay!

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2016, 07:01:19 pm »

Wow. Thanks for writing that up - while as you say it's a rough guess it at least gives me something to work with. Based on everything I've read and been told here I think I'm going to build out a throw-away hull first to use as a test bed. Which should be a lot of fun in and of itself.
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,463
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2016, 07:36:14 pm »

This will do!......not quite.....your photograph certainly does not look like 66 mm FWD draft :o......however the WIKI people do offer the draft dimensions as you have indicated

"Forward draft is 66mm. Aft draft is 91mm. The length and width are less at the waterline than 1105 x 330mm, but I'm guessing total laden weight (boat + cargo) will be somewhere between 15 to 20kg".

If we simply based the draft on the average ie., 78 mm, we see 1105x330x78 = 28kg displacement...does that please you?

Derek

Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary [Retired]
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2016, 08:08:35 pm »

This should give you an idea of how deeply it sits in the water -



My plans (hand drawn, so assuming of the original, or copies of it) and Wikipedia both provide the same numbers, so I have to assume they're correct.

And yes, this pleases me greatly  %% I got 27 point something kg, so my 15 to 20kg was intentionally on the conservative side.
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,463
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2016, 08:37:21 pm »

The WIKI data needs to be read carefully. The 8200kg displacement includes the 3700kg of cargo, but doesn't note that the 36 troops may have a combined weight of ~~2800kg..........

So 3700+2880 = 6580kg.......or ~~1620kg scaled for the weight of hull and machinery...........

With model engineering, being conservative uses larger numbers for displacement O0...using smaller numbers is being optimistic ...that you won't sink {-)

Derek
Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary [Retired]
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2016, 09:12:45 pm »

I'm learning fast  :}
Logged

NFMike

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,054
  • Location: Hythe, Hants, UK
    • Plague Marine Services
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2016, 11:02:16 pm »

As you are building a model of a specific prototype I'd suggest that at least initially you use props of the correct scale size (+/-) and appearance - you never know when you might end up displaying it. I'd think they will also need to be finer pitch - as in tugboat rather than speedboat.


Prop-shafts and couplings are mentioned above, but with this type of craft you don't want the motors in the middle of the boat. You could have fairly short shafts ending with a toothed pulley and mount the motors above the shafts facing forward (so the back of the motor is near the transom) and also with a pulley. Toothed belt to join them. That also gives you options to change the prop maximum rpm (by changing the pulley ratios) without changing batteries.

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2016, 11:06:07 pm »

Thank you. I'm guessing that's standard practice for such a scenario. Is achieving the same effect with a pinion and spur gear a possibility, or not recommended at all?
Logged

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,463
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2016, 11:28:29 pm »

 :embarrassed:...looking at your image with the troops on board, I think I have misunderstood the WIKI spec

Capacity = 2700kg vehicles or 3700kg cargo...the difference is probably due to the high axel loadings on the lower hull structure

It then talks about Troops = 36 + 4 crew...so the troops with gear could be 100kg each, plus the crew could be ~~similar to the 3700kg for cargo

The displacement of [1105x330x78] is an agreed ~~28kg

With the ratio of vessel to cargo being 55:45, would suggest the hull could be ~~15 kg

So a 1105 x 330 x 130 deep empty shoe box could be of rather substantial construction {-) if allowed to be ~~15kg

Always best to understand the ball park parameters before buying the engine & running gear....as Plague suggests...at scale speed, you will need the torque of a model tug boat of similar displacement as the original Landing Craft had a speed of some 12 knots only?

Derek

Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary [Retired]
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

malcolmfrary

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,027
  • Location: Blackpool, Lancs, UK
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2016, 10:24:32 am »

Some scale notes using information from the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCVP_(United_States) -
maximum weight will be 22 lb.  The lower vehicle rating is most likely due to where the vehicle could be parked having its effect on trim.  Having any part of the ramp under water would be regarded as a bad thing.
Power to drive it a scale looking speed  - 186 watts, but that is output from the motor.  Real life internal combustion motors are rated by output, model electrics by input, so multiply by about 50% to allow for motor inefficiencies and model props not being as efficient as the real thing.
Scale looking speed will be the published speed divided by the square root of the scale which works out at about 7 feet per second.  To get to this, the prop rotation speed must be multiplied by the square root of the scale, probably plus a bit for luck.
Logged
"With the right tool, you can break anything" - Garfield

NFMike

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,054
  • Location: Hythe, Hants, UK
    • Plague Marine Services
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2016, 01:11:35 pm »

Thank you. I'm guessing that's standard practice for such a scenario. Is achieving the same effect with a pinion and spur gear a possibility, or not recommended at all?
Gears will work. Just that the alignment is more critical (ie. harder) and they are likely to be noisier, unless you put them in an oil filled gearbox  :-)

Tugtower

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 190
  • Owner of The RCMB Forum
  • Location: Workshop. S.Wales.UK
    • RCMB Forum
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2016, 08:17:18 pm »

After looking more closely at the boat in question I don't think the need for placing the motor above or to the side of the shaft with the use of gears or belt drive will be nesesary, there seams to be substantial room inside the rear of the boat to hold all the drive equipment directly.

It's almost 1/3rd of the rear of boat respectively sealed off which will allow for simple direct drive connection. This sealed off area only contains gunners ports and hatches to which respectively will only be cosmetic detail, thus allowing for a decent amount of room to house all the running gear & electrics.

I mentioned using actions p94 before although an excellent twin esc and mixer unit for this boat it's wasted being only single prop and rudder, your better to use a stand alone esc rated for your motor (15-20amp respectively) servo for the rudder, and possibly a servo for the ramp, although you may need to use a servo winch rather then a basic servo for that action, all will power from your single battery through the esc and through the reciver.

You can of corse choose to use gears or belt drive ( belt drive being the better solution) if wanting to place the motor else where but this becomes an extra part to maintain and get right.

When I build boats and I'm into the 100 + territory now I will only every advise to K.I.S.S = keep it simple stupid.

Sometimes the simple basic methods produce the best results and in the case of this model direct connection to the end of the shaft would work just as well if not better.
Making things over complicated will only end in extra work and extra headaches, over engineering is fine, I do that myself but I do it so I can build something and what ever goes wrong takes me 5 mins to fix rather then days or weeks. ( all my builds can be seen following my webpage link)

There are options for gear reduction, Mfa geared motors would be something to look at, but again after further study of your orginal boat link, you would be looking at a 3 blade prop in the 40mm dia range, many variations in pitch to suit your choice in motor, with a single prop and rudder setup you will also want to be looking at higher rpm rates around the 10-12,000 would be a suitable start, keep in mind that the rpm of the motor will be dictated by the voltage of the power sorce.

Another pointer, wiki is not always the best sorce for information is is a known fact that not everything stated there is correct, I would advise looking else where for specification information before taking wiki at its word.

Word of advice tho, don't get bogged down in every aspect of "theoretical calculations" especially on forums, focus on doing a test rig first get first hand answers to your questions use those for determining what the model can or can't do.

No amount of calculation will change what your final model will or will not be able to do!

malcolmfrary

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,027
  • Location: Blackpool, Lancs, UK
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2016, 11:10:26 pm »

Quote
No amount of calculation will change what your final model will or will not be able to do!
...........but a very small amount will tell you whether it is possible or not, or whether there will be limitations to work round before building yourself into a corner.  Scale RC oats is a unique corner of modelling being the only branch where not only does it need to be the right size and shape, but the models weight and its distribution need to be correct along with an appropriate power level.  Nobody wants to see a prized RC 4X4 get dunked because its carrying platform wasn't up to the job.
Logged
"With the right tool, you can break anything" - Garfield

Tugtower

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 190
  • Owner of The RCMB Forum
  • Location: Workshop. S.Wales.UK
    • RCMB Forum
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2016, 11:23:45 pm »

Quote
focus on doing a test rig first get first hand answers to your questions use those for determining what the model can or can't do.

Quote
In this case, with the construction of this vessel in order to hold more weight, a reduction of dead weight ballast can be used allowing the model to hold more 'cargo' physical weight, as dead weight ballast can be substituted for weight in cargo.


This however dose leave an issues when using the model unloaded, to which suggestions can be made to counter, such as water tight chambers which could be flooded when the model is 'empty'.



And I'm pretty sure (100%) I made suggestions in previous posts in regards to motors, rpm, props... 

this is just my personal advice and opinion, it can freely discarded, ignored. But again there is no need to get ultra technical when it comes to models, models will always behave differently than A full size craft, having a rough idea is more ideal then guesstimating and finding it was all for squat.

Dont forget how model warships ( as an example) lean in Wakes and breezes ( it's like force 9 storms at times with the rolling) some even unsailable on particular conditions, full size don't have the issues as scale isn't their problem.

This is why I base my models on working principles rather then scaled facts.

Don't get me wrong it's always good to see the research, but its always theoretical, rarly practical.



 ok2

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2016, 10:36:43 pm »

Thanks Mr. Tugtower. Pretty much sums up my sentiment. I suspect there's value in every post in this thread, and as mentioned above the plan, once I get home from this canal boat holiday, is to start work on a prototype/proof of concept hull that I can play with, sink, and generally use to get some answers.
Logged

Fourth Protocol

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Keep calm and rage quit
  • Location: London
Re: London pseudo n00b
« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2016, 08:06:25 pm »

Been quiet since July because all my time has gone into producing a prototype, which I present for you to marvel and wonder at here, now.







Jokes aside, I've been up to my ears with other stuff, but really want this so making time for it now. The tub is simply a displacement test for ~5kg of cargo. I shouldn't have worried - 10Kg will be fine and still ride well above the ramp height. Next step is a prototype hull.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.142 seconds with 21 queries.