- Description of contents
— a… Lake= 2) = A\ HOBBY MAGAZINE —i Lake — Lael| i ke Cc 4 2… © Lebel= heel USA & CANADA SEVENTY FIVE CENTS _ Fe) fakes —) Cc [—-] ~ Ledel a. al <= = el fore) FULL 0) @w = 0 8 [7 0 G Kae L DECEMBER 1971 — ‘— = ‘me handheld TMM.Sparham HOF Day RUNoble M. Haines G. Bantock chine W -Witty tee ST – Stollery 48 17 47 18 44 12 ae 40 37 Byes 79 78 71 Posi’n RWN— counted. had made a and on his bye won 3 but dropped 2, finishing on 79. Lizanne, with a potential, with two byes, of 83, scored 3 on the first, and thus needed 3 from the last to force a draw. She dropped the 2 and then had the mortification of seeing her opponent sail over the line while she sat in a calm patch near the weather bank. Mtee $ ° SYPIBS. – of the top six. Many of the one-offs are, however, tricky to sail; even Hector, which has had a most successful year, has been erratic in the previous two or three seasons. For a change, not quite half the boats were glass-fibre, but all but one or two were bulb-keelers. fe es Baxron> tes. GoW F HERE OSE The club, and particular mention here of the ladies, had worked extremely hard to make the meeting the success it undoubtedly was, and we must express our great appreciation of their efforts, as well as those of all the officials. Many competitors had never previously sailed there, but now they’ve been, will certainly go again. Below, top, Catweazle sails Dolphin, skippered by young J. Wood. Centre, second placer Lizanne about to sail Tiptoe. Bottom, fener 14.30 Supre Sar TARTERS the BELTON START 07-45 Suaee Sun ULLINGFORD Top, neat scoreboard gave heat-by-heat positions. Centre, the winner. Bottom, George Clarke, Dick Seager, and Roy Griffin in very light airs, Sony watched by umpire Roger tollery. 494 Hector sailing when Catweazle at one of the few times spinnakers could be carried. DECEMBER 1971 RADIO CONTROLLED YACHTS , SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZE BOATS INTENDED FOR ‘ONE DESIGN’ SAILING AVAILABLE IN G.R.P. SR ADIOCONFROLEED yachts have been around for some 20 years in this country — indeed, we can remember attending a meeting designed to ex- plore the possibilities of an R/C yachting association, 17 years ago. Since that time, there have been tremendous developments in radio design, production, reliability, size, weight, etc., and of costs it can be said that you now buy far more sophisticated and trouble-free equipment for a comparatively lower price than was paid even 10 years ago. The net result, in R/C sailing, is about two dozen registered Q class boats and a number of scattered individuals and an occasional small group sailing Marbleheads, Starlets, or non-class boats. The Q class is the only recognised class for R/C, and even this seems slightly complex. Originally, ex-A class boats were slightly modified to rate as Qs, but if you built a new boat for R/C, it had to be measured as an A before it could be accepted as a Q. There has recently been some new thinking on this, with the aim of simplifying registration. Such boats, however, are in some ways a hangover from the early days of home-built equipment, some of which, with accumulators, weighed as much as 16 lb., and naturally a large boat was needed to carry it. A big boat, too, can cope with any sort of weather. For most people, seven feet of hull is too large, however. It was shown a dozen or more years ago that a day’s sailing could be had on 2 lb. of radio/ battery weight, and a number of attempts have been made to produce a more convenient size class. The M.Y.A. did, indeed, recognise the R class, but this rule never took on, possibly because it was intended to embrace a wide range of existing boats but, when This is our 42 in. model, four of which are already ‘booked’. A buib fin would have been nice, but the fin shown avoids casting. Step-by-step instructions start next issue, and you can see examples (and buy a hull if you wish) at the M.E. Exhibition. 497 SE EE ee The plug for our 42 in. design has been seen and admired by a well-known full-size designer. Hulls will be available from the end of November onward. sized one. The 34 in. Starlet design proved extremely popular, but for many people, a shade on the small side. The Marblehead can already be sailed with radio and is so used in several countries, but has never appealed for R/C in Britain, the most frequent comment being criticism of the plumb-ended hull, which, while functionally efficient, does not prove aesthetically satisfying to all potential yachtsmen. The 10-rater is usually considered too large, the 36R too small and also suffering from plumb ends. A completely new class—or two new classes — appears to be the only answer, but the few recognised designers are primarily vane sailers and are busy enough on developing this form of yachting. Not many first-time skippers are bold enough to design their own, and, in any event, who would mea- sure and certify a new class of yacht, particularly if the rule takes account of the waterline length (a fiddly measurement to make) which, with the sail area, has the greatest influence on a yacht’s performance? One answer, suggested by a long-time sailor and quite coincidentally by a power-boating would-be yachtsman, could be a standard sail area or even a standard rig, beneath which could be placed any hull the owner fancied. The Naviga DX class is an ex- ample of such a rule, and from a design point of it came down to it, very few existing craft could rate without modification, usually either lengthening or shortening. The R class was withdrawn as an official class a couple of years or so ago, and the situation then drifted along, with attempts to get R/C Marblehead conversions organised, and similar efforts, all coming to nought. Some people have blamed the ‘M.Y.A.’, but that body, tied by a somewhat clumsy constitution, has in fact been quite prepared to help. Any group of six or more people with a regular racing programme can become an affiliated club and can put proposals forward for adoption. A slight snag is that other clubs should be working on similar lines, and in the case of a new class, the suggestion is that if there are, say, fifty boats of that class being sailed. there is unlikely to be any difficulty in getting class recognition. This parallels full-size practice in a way; when a new boat takes on (designed, probably, and promoted by one of the yachting magazines) the usual step is for an owners’ association to be formed. When the class is numerically strong enough, application for recognition to the national body is made. While matters have drifted along in Britain, R/C yachting has been ‘discovered’ in other countries, and is fast becoming as well supported as power boating. Various European countries are developing this form of sailing fast (with West Germany in the lead, certainly in the production of specialised accessories such as sail winches and even complete designed-forR/C kits) and, as we have seen in these pages, R/C yachting is becoming very well supported in the U.S.A. Correspondence from Japan, Australia, and other countries suggests that expansion can shortly be looked for elsewhere. It is clear that there is no lack of interest in Britain—on the contrary, we have been surprised at the growth, particularly, oddly enough, among aeromodellers— but from conversations and innumerable letters, it is clear that a lead is sought. The need exists for a small class and, if possible, a medium 498 view the idea has much to commend it. It does not, however, encourage the very raw beginner or the one who is put off by such building jobs as casting the lead, etc., even if a number of designs suitable for the rig were published. All the successful inexpensive full-size racing classes are one-design, where a standard hull and standard sail area are used by all competitors and the race results depend on skill in preparation and handling. This is the one approach to R/C yachts which has never been tried in Britain, but the one we think stands most chance of success. The idea has been discussed often enough, but no-one has ever actually said ‘Right. Here it is. This is what we are now doing. To get off the ground, we feel that a standard hull and a standard suit of sails, and perhaps even a standard rigging set should be made available. In addition, a sailing meeting should be arranged in the foreseeable future, with a challenge trophy. This is all in hand, though in some details not completely finalised. As to the yacht itself, we have had a great deal of correspondence over the last few years, and we have done some what might be termed ‘market research’. The answer satisfying the greater number of require- ments is a boat between 36 and M size, attractive in appearance, round bilge with overhangs, simple rig, relatively small sail area, capable of carrying, say 14 lb. of radio gear, easy to complete, portable, and avoiding the off-putting constructional bits like keel casting. With regard to the last, the foundry cost of a lead casting is now around 25p per pound, and carriage on, say, a 7 lb. parcel about 35p, total £2.10 without any margin for handling, packing, etc., so supplying castings is not really on. The boat which fits these requirements, to the best of our ability, is shown in the accompanying line drawing. L.o.a. is 42 in., l-w.l. 33 in., w.l. beam 8.4 in., sail area 504 sq. in. and displacement 12 Ib. Forgive the slightly old-fashioned fin keel, but there is a reason. The keel comes with the hull as a two-piece DECEMBER 1971 George Dowling’s Radio Solent is an attractive and practical boat. Its parentage is fairly obvious, Performance is excellent, Write to him c/o Model Boats for further details. power unit winner. He a model in for winter becomes the main factor in deciding the therefore set to to design and construct which he could interest other yachtsmen racing when their full-size craft are laid up. Over to Mr. Dowling for the story. ‘In designing such a boat two points had to be borne in mind: (a) as no enclosed water is available locally, sailing would be mainly in the river estuary. (b) a fairly light boat was required, for easy trans- portation. ‘With regard to (a), this meant that the yacht would have to be large enough to deal with a chop, with ample freeboard, a fine entry, and in order to appeal to local yachtsmen should look like a yacht glass-fibre moulding which is epoxied together, fitted with a strut, and lined and packed with builders’ sheet lead until it weighs a calculated figure, depending on radio weight. Alternatively, it can be filled with lead shot or punchings, or chopped lead pipe to the same weight. Simple and cheap? Pour in a drop of resin or glue, stuff the blank spaces with polystyrene foam, and attach to the hull. More details when we get down to construction. Intermediate Size Class Someone who has done something about an intermediate size yacht is George Dowling, of Cowes, who decided that power boats were no longer for him and, as a full-size sailing enthusiast, felt that racing a R/C yacht round buoys against four or five other onedesign boats offered greater pleasure, especially as sailing skill rather than the potency of a particular and not a submarine with sails. ‘With regard to (b) I came to the conclusion that 26 lb. was the maximum to be aimed at. I freely admit that my thoughts were largely influenced by the lines of Chris Dicks’ Emperor, which appeared in Model Boats when I was first considering the idea. Here was a design with the fine entry I required being proved successful, but in order to keep to the 26 Ib. maximum it would be necessary to flatten the sections considerably. ‘The result was Radio Solent, with apologies to the B.B.C. Radio Solent is 64 in. overall, 46 in. on the waterline, 113 in. beam, with a displacement of 26 lb. Sail area is approximately 1,100 sq. in., and whilst it was not my intention, she does fit the old ‘R’ class rule. ‘I am sure that although not the fastest boat that could be built to that rule, Radio Solent has proved (continued on page 496) 499 — le SS hl MODEL BOATS fitting of the tiller arm? It is not proposed to answer any of these questions; in any case the answers would Racing Model be personal opinion and need not be acceptable to the majority. The emphasis here is not on the calibre of the answers but on the need to ask the questions. At the time when the decision was taken to write these notes there were a reasonable number of new designs being published. This gave the majority of skippers and would-be skippers a chance to have an Yacht Construction Part 18 Conclusion By C. R. Griffin ~ N the main this final article will be devoted to the examination of some of the reasoning that in- fluences the way that things are done, rather than being an exposition of the actual ‘modus operandi’. In simple words, to consider WHY as opposed to HOW. Nothing that has been written so far in the series is intended to be authoritative or dogmatical. The only objective throughout has been to encourage the reader to reason for himself by offering for his consideration alternative methods with, where it was considered necessary, justification for using that particular method. As an illustration of this point, it can be as easy to mould a bi-part bulb keel, using a ‘plaster’ mould as it is to produce a uni-part one. On examination, it is probably easier, although the use of sand as a moulding medium may, in the long run, prove to be more economic. That these articles have induced some skippers to be more critical is evident from pondside conversations when the writer has been informed that a method described in the series has been improved upon, ‘bearing in mind — “the windage factor” or “the weight reduction aspect” or “by the choice of a different material’. This information is welcomed rather than resented because it shows that the main objective of the articles is being achieved. (It also provides extra material for the writer’s notebook!) The quest to produce a better boat, be it faster or more versatile, entails a degree of experimentation. This does not necessarily mean revolutionary alterations in hull design; as has been stated previously, often the performance can be improved by attention to such detail as weight distribution or the set of the sails. What is meant by experimentation in this context is the critical examination of existing methods, materials and motives with a view to finding alternatives, followed by the objective assessment of the relative merits of each alternative, including the existing, to decide whether change is necessary and if so, how it is to be effected. It may well be that, at that point in time, there is no better alternative; nevertheless, quite often the critical examination process throws to light other facets which should be the subject of criticism. The fact that something has always been done in a specific way should not be the sole justification for continuing to do it that way. To give examples of areas for critical examination, consider the following questions. Is the weight of 2 lb. the ultimate in hull weight for a Marblehead? Is glassfibre-reinforced resin the only material that can be used to attain that weight? Are inwales really necessary when the hull is constructed in wood? How far aft can the rudder be positioned without affecting the performance? Can the advantages of the breakback vane gear be combined with those of the moving carriage gear in one mechanism? Is the preference for upright rudder posts purely a matter of ease of 512 up-to-date design of boat, should they choose to build one. Today there is a scarcity of published designs, especially in the 10-rater and Marblehead classes — the initial choice of most beginners. There are new designs about, as any spectator at a district or national event can verify, but for one reason or another, these do not get published. In the interest of the sport as a whole it is vital that this situation be remedied; too many _ beginners usually sailing somebody else’s discarded model, discouraged by a continual thrashing from the opposition, become dis- enchanted with the sport and eventually quit. There is no inference that the possession of a boat built to a recent design automatically ensures the owner a place in the prize list; this would be over- looking the ability of the skipper. Instances can be quoted of some very able skippers who could sail almost any form of boat into the top places. Conversely, there are those skippers who have a boat which has high potentialities but they themselves lack the ability to sail it. What is implied is that, if more designs were available, there is more likelihood that the beginner will choose a design suited to his own ability and to the ‘local’ sailing conditions. It is not advocated that a designer immediately passes on to all and sundry the results of many hours of personal work. It is equitable that he should receive the prime benefit, in some way or another, from his efforts. However, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that when he has had, say, two or three seasons’ use of that design, that he gives serious consideration to the publication of the design. This decision must rest with the designer and should not be the subject of any argument whatsoever. However, unless the sport is to evolve into one in which only designer/skippers or skippers with the exclusive use of a design participate, someone must lzad the way. This suggestion, for that is what it is, must not be construed as a criticism of the attitude of any one person or group of persons. It is merely an attempt to provide one solution to a present-day problem. As an alternative to the foregoing, would a designer consider writing a series of articles explaining the precise mechanics of yacht design as applied to models, together with the ‘accepted’ governing criteria? Possibly then, many more people would feel confident to tackle the problem of yacht design. Some years ago it was the practice of designers to give tables of weights with their designs. Would it not be possible to revive this practice even if the information is only estimated? It is valuable data to the builder in that it gives an indication of the constructional methods envisaged by the designer. Progressing from that point, is there any serious objection to the indication on the plans of the centre of lateral resistance and the centre of effort of the sailplan? No doubt someone will produce the argument that these points are not constant in their location but are subject to movement as various forces are applied, therefore, there is little value in their position being plotted. Notwithstanding the validity of the first part of the argument, it is felt that the showing of these points under static conditions has some DECEMBER benefits to the builder. Also, could not the designer show approximately where he thought the vane gear should be placed and what weight and type of gear he had anticipated? A further point which bears examination and is directly connected with the construction of boats is the tendency in certain spheres to introduce restriction on innovation and new ideas. SO LONG AS THE IDEAS ARE WITHIN THE RULES EXTANT it would appear to be taking retrogressive steps. If the rules are too ambiguous or are such that they can be subjected to gross misinterpretation, then the rules should be rewritten to express their precise intention. It is the writer’s contention that rules should be drafted in such a manner as to provide guidelines for development rather than stifle it. Often these restrictions are proposed under the pretence that, by limiting or even preventing the introduction of something new, model yachts will remain competitive for longer periods and thus the sport becomes more of a test of the sailing ability of the skipper. But if the argument is examined further, is there any fairness in giving the natural skipper the edge over the superior builder or the skipper with a flair for design? At any one time, any set of rules will favour some at the expense of others. Basically, what is being said by the supporters of the restrictive rules is that under these rules certain people should invariably win events, a proposition which to those who sail for the enjoyment of the sport, as do the vast majority, is little different from the fact that under the present rules certain people invariably do win. To maintain an attitude of impar- tiality and to view the other side of the coin, it must be said that there are those, and they are small in numbers, who take advantage of the ambiguity of the rules and by their actions cause the introduction of certain restrictions to be contemplated. The formation of class associations who will assume responsibility for the drafting of the rules for that class is an admirable concept, although it is difficult to foresee exactly how they will operate effectively under present circumstances. A development within the structure of the class association could be a ‘think tank’ composed of, say, measurers from all clubs which regularly sail that class of boat together with designers to that rule. These people know, or at least they should know, the existing rules and the faults therein, equally, they should be aware of any constructional problems. This group could deliberate on proposed amendments, as well as propose amendments, and their decisions ought to carry a degree of authority (influence derived from experience) when put to the main body of the association. A final point which, along with the preceding, will no doubt label the writer as ‘being another b—— FIGHTING FLEETS (continued from page 507) modation ships add the prefix O, eg. OBB. Guided missile warships add the suffix G, e.g. CAG, DDG). Submarines — SS (Submarines equipped with ballistic missiles have the suffix B and, since they are all nuclearpowered, N, e.g. SSBN. Ships used as radar pickets use the suffix R, and anti-aircraft ships the suffix AA). Frigates — DL Escort ships — DE Landing ships — Ls (LSD=Landing ship, dock; LSV=Vehicle land- ing ship; LST=Tank landing ship). Ss 1871 rebel’. Instead of concerning ourselves, at this present time, with lengthy discourses on how many classes of boats there should be, with the prime objective of encouraging more participants to the sport, would it not be more sensible to concentrate efforts, and passions, on preserving, conserving, and acquiring sailing waters? There is no finer advertisement, or inducement to participate, than the sight of boats (of any class whatsoever) being sailed on ‘local’ waters. It could be that if the present course is maintained, a point is reached when there is a plethora of boats but nowhere to sail. To preserve and protect this pastime of ours it is surely better to mount a concerted attack on forces without than to fight amongst ourselves. Although any thought that encourages the newcomer is applaudable, it is essential that the correct priorities are established. Ideally, it would have been advantageous to have included in the articles a list of suppliers of various materials. This was among the original attentions, but it has proved impossible (one supplier actually wanted to see a copy of the draft of these notes before he would agree to his name appearing). Inability to obtain certain materials is a problem that all builders encounter at some time or another, existing sources dry up and often there is no known alternative source. Parallel with this frustration is the fact that some materials lose their marketability and so cease to be manufactured. In other cases, goods which are excellent in use by the model yachtsman, though never intended for that purpose when offered for sale, are replaced by goods that are useless to modellers but satisfy the original purpose. All this, plus the fact that individually constructors of boats do not purchase large quantities at any one time, makes for difficulty of supply. Builders should be constructive in the fullest sense of the word and, unfortunate though the circumstances may be, should search for practical substitutes. Possibly through the class association, as a collective body, builders could use another of those ever increasing modern techniques and enter the field of bulk purchasing. To conclude this series on a more personal note, I hope that what has been written has been of interest, albeit that it may not have been beneficial, to all. I hope that those who have corresponded on various topics have been satisfied with the answers that I have given. I acknowledge the assistance given to me by many skippers and friends, in particular Messrs. Clark, Goddard and Day, together with Messrs. Dicks, Shepherd and Stollery, for their assistance in some matter or another. My thanks also to Mr. Doward for his excellent photographic work. I am indebted to both the Editor and the staff of Model Boats for their treatment of my script and sketches. Dock ships — LP Auxiliaries — A (AG=experimental ship, e.g. an exper. submarine is classified AGSS. AD= Destroyer tender; AS=Submarine tender). Mineships — M (MMF=Fleet minelayer; MSF=Fleet minesweeper. U.S.S. Terror was first classified CM 5, is now MSF 5). In peacetime U.S. warships are painted haze grey with a black waterline. Decks of Dixie are planked. The plan shows her as she appeared at the end of 1956; note that some of the gun tubs are empty. Next month: and Curatone. 513 eee Italian destroyers Leone, Turbine
