Model Maker: Volume 3, Issue 32 – July 1953

VOLUME 3 NUMBER 32 IN THIS ISSUE : “Hiawatha” Twin-engined Radio Controlled Hydroplane : Semi-Scale Garvey : a el “Dees’ Do” Indoor Car Meeting : Italian Car Nationals : Portsmouth Rail Track : National Marbleheads at Hove : Tucker on Ten-Raters : Freelance Diesel Electrics : Waggon Turntable : Points about Points : Healey Mille Miglia for 4cc. Engines : ‘Number 12” 10 cc. Record Car : _ Jaguar XK 120 Model : “H.M.S. Wolverton” Freelance Cruiser : Drifter-Trawler : “Gerry” 0 Gauge _ Steam Tanker : Prototype—Kieft 11-2 litre Sports Car : Bus or Coach Station : Works Norton . JULY 1953 HA 36 in. UNRESTRICTED CLASS MODEL YACHT This model is effectively rudder controlled only by the E.D. “Boomerang’’ ready-wired RadioControl Unit, the E.D. Mk. II Miniature R/C Unit or the E.D. Mk. Ill Miniature R/C Unit. The rudder control is operated by the E.D. Mk. | Clockwork Escapement. Radio, Servo and batteries are housed in hatches in the deck. “A” CLASS MODEL YACHT This model is fully radio-controlled by rudder and sail with the E.D. Mk. IV Tuned Reed and 3-Channel Radio-Control Unit. For more than one operation (i.e., rudder and sail) the reed unit is, of course, essential. This magnificent model was built, installed and operated with great success by Mr. George Honnest Redlich, the R.C.M.S. Fleetwood Winner, and Percival Hove Winner. E.D. Marshall, RADIO CONTROL UNIT PRICES E.D. Mk. Ill ‘Miniature’ (Transmitter, Receiver, and Escapement) E.D. pt “Boomerang” mitter, Receiver seo RED, LS (Trans- Escapement), completely wired, soft or hard valve) £11 showing eck, ShOWINg the E.D. tag Mk. 19 6 E.D. Mk. Il ‘Miniature’ (Transmitter, Receiver, and Escapement) three hard The radio and servo installation (inset) in the drop-in box on the deck, ; and “beter? 1 ead £17 Il son ety tuned Reed 3- IV x annel : receiver, rudder mechanism, sail mechanism, and batteries. Unit, 6 comprising Transmitter Control Box and Receiver, less Escapement one eh … £23 15 0 All Prices include Purchase Tax “ELECTRONIC DEVELOPMENTS (SURREY) LTD KINGSTON-OW THAMES DEVELOPMENT -E GItNeEER S REPLYING TO 1223 (8,VILLIERS ROAD, KINGSTON -ON-THAMES, SURREY, ENGLAND. KINDLY MENTION “MODEL MAKER” WHEN ADVERTISEMENTS | ne eS SS MODEL MRKER 10- RATER DESIGN INTRODUCTORY 10 – Il A NEW REMARKS RATER TO DESIGN WHICH WILL APPEAR IN AUGUST BY B. TUCKER buying plans that have been designed as a whole. If you try to “improve” them, you are quite likely to ruin the boat by introducing features that are out of keeping with the original. So, please, keep to the design. When a set of lines are published, the designer seldom hears from builders, particularly if they are successful yachts. Recently at a Southern Club, I was shown two boats by a member. “There you are,” he said “* Twins from your published design. This one, mine, Club and District Class Champion—that one second, Mr. Dash’s, just a few points behind in each race.” Yet I had never heard that a single boat had ever been built to these lines or had any news about performance. Of course it was nice to know, but a little information as to performance, etc., is always helpful and an A study in wave making: Though not a flattering picture o Lynx this shows her action and wave throw very well. These points are of great interest to a designer. At the time there was a moderately light breeze, and the boat was travelling fast. It will be seen from the distance apart of the crests of her bow and stern waves that even in a comparatively light wind she uses almost her entire length, and maintains her fore-and-aft trim exactly. Her clean wake shows how little water she pulls astern of her, and how well bow and stern wave are synchronised encouragement to the designer. The design which accompanies this article is a10-R. This is the oldest class of model yacht in use, and is to the Length and Sail Area Rule, promulgated by Dixon Kemp in 1887 for the A®* a designer I naturally take great interest in models built from my designs. H. Yet success in model yacht racing is only attained by a combination of good design, good building and good handling, and of these the key factor measurement of full-sized craft. It contained two novel features. Under it Sail Area was measured for the first time. Also instead of measuring L.O.A., as hitherto, L.W.L. was is the skipper. Some years ago I visited a strange pond and made myself known to some members of the local club. One of them told me he had built to one of my published designs, but the boat was measured. This rule produced a number of Classes, and at first proved very popular, especially in the 3-R and 1-R Classes. It was adopted by model yatchsmen during this time for several Classes including the 10-R on a scale of 1 in. – 1 ft. The fact that L.W.L. was measured led designers to evolve boats with long overhangs in order to gain unmeasured sailing length. As not a success. Now I knew this design had produced a number of excellent boats, so I suggested he should show her to me. On inspection I saw the boat was well built and finished, but instead of her stern matching the bow, as in the design, she had a great, heavy stern that was entirely foreign to the design. I enquired, and it appeared that the builder had showed the lines to Mr. Bill Blank, who opined the quarters wanted filling out. I detail this for the benefit of any novices who may read this article. It is a waste of time and money to build to an inferior design. On the other hand, if you buy a good design, you are a result, though early Raters were desirable boats, later ones became shallow, beamy scows with inordinately long overhangs. As a result, the Rule was ultimately superseded by the Linear Rating Rule of 1896. I myself once owned an old 1-R, 30ft. L.O.A. on a 20 ft. L.W.L. To-day, the sole survivors are a few old 1-Raters which race up-river, but in models the 380 Sea July 1953 10-R remains as popular as ever, and, although the class is now well over 60 years old, over 1,000 of the class figure in the Register of the M.Y.A. But the modern 10-R is very different to her sisters of forty or more years ago. In those days the 10-R was a flat, beamy scow 36 in./40in., beam 12in., draught 9 in./10in., S.A. 1,666 to 1,500 sq. in., displacement 16 to 20 Ib. Compare these with “ Io-II ”:— L.O.A. 72.8 in., L.W.L. 52 in., beam 10.75 in., draught 11 in., S.A. 1,147 sq. in., displacement 27 Ib. Of course, a change has been made in the In the 1920’s, method of measuring S.A. model yachtsmen decided that instead of measuring actual sail area, this should be done in the L.Y.R.U. manner. This was partly due to the general adoption of Bermuda rig, and to bring methods of measurement of S.A. into line with other British classes. In order to see how far this is responsible for the present owth in size, let us calculate the S.A. of “ To-II” by both methods. First, however, let us see the difference between the two methods of measurement. Old Method Headsails taken on actual area, but area of any roach (i.e. outward bow to a sail Mainsail taken on actual edge) disregarded. area, and area of any roach to the after leach added. The latter was calculated by multiplying length of leach by two-thirds of the greatest breadth of bow. New Method Fore triangle measured in place of headsails, and a deduction of 15 per cent. allowed. Mainsail measured on area and roach not measured, provided battens to extend the roach do not exceed specified lengths. A headboard 1 inch wide is also allowed without being measured. Here are the two calculations : — Old Methed: Maiinsail Plus Roach 76.0 x 2 3 Jib 56.0 (3) USS Jerid 13.0 x … ——-— 5 Total S.A. OTT = 364 afb = 1241 New Method: Mainsail 76.0 x 19.0 .—— 2 Less 15 p.c. 62.5 x 16.0 … —————— = 500 2 = Total S.A. 75= 425 = 1147 It will be seen that though the new method of sail measurement does give an advantage of 94 sq. in. it by no means accounts for the great increase in waterline length in the new 10-R’s. Hence this can only be attributed to improved sail plans, which give greater driving power to each square inch of canvas, which is assisted by the substitution of vane for Braine steering. With this must be coupled the better design of modern hulls. Since lessons learnt in one Rating Class can frequently be applied to others, it may be worth while to try to discover why modern 10’s are longer, narrower and heavier than their predecessors. 19.0 ——_———— = 722 TTC —— Fore Triangle = poe Let us start from the elementary fact that a yacht’s potential speed depends on her wave length. A vessel’s main wave system consists of her bow and stern waves, and the boat travels in the trough between these. The wave léngth is the distance between the crests of these waves, and the longer the wave length, the faster the waves travel. If a boat is badly designed and does not use her full length (Fig. 1), she will accordingly have a shorter wave length, and therefore, a lower potential _ e e e MODEL MAKER speed, than a well designed boat that uses almost her full length (Fig. 2). This is one of the things a trained observer will deduce from watching a boat’s action through the water. The formula used in comparing the speeds of different boats of possibly different types and this is so, but I think one can reason matters out for oneself. If one examines the body plan of a yacht, and considers it in a heeled position (Fig. 5), the waterlines are no longer waterlines but have become diagonals. So has the profile (which is in reality a buttock taken out through the centreline of the ship). In other words, the various lines change position in sailing. Hence it would seem that the fastest all-round disposition of any given displacement on a given L.W.L length is when the greatest body depth =} L.W.L. beam. This is based on the fact that a yacht is heeled for five-sixths of the courses she has to sail. Incidentally, the proportion of five-sixths is sizes is :— V+¥V_ L = Speed Factor. where V = Vessel’s Speed (in knots) and L = L.W.L. (in feet). Taking some actual figures, let us work this out for a model with L.W.L. of 48 in: (4 ft.) and a speed of 2+ knots. This gives us: 24++/ 4 = Speed Factor. See = £25 Actually this is more or less an average speed factor to use in estimating the speed a good racing model should make. not a guess. So let us apply compass this to a boat with 52 in. L.W.L. to see how her i ES cannot sail. 52 in. (4.33 ft.)=2.08, then: —2.0 : 2.08 : : 2.5: (2.5 x 2.08 + 2.0)=2.6. Thus we see that all other things being equal the boat with a 52in. L.W.L. should have a speed of 2.6 knots against a speed of 2.5 knots for one of 48 in. L.W.L. Though naturally a yacht’s potential speed or though a_ of the same length have practised the same term displacement. system takes less energy to propel than one displacement. rll similar L.W.L. length When the yacht moves forward her own length, she has displaced in her passage a similar amount of water which has been pushed aside by the “ entry,” and replaced the delivery of the after body. The that creates a deep one. From which we deduce that the former yacht will attain higher speeds in light winds, and reach her potential speed sooner than the latter craft. Regarded superficially, this might seem to imply that the scow is the fastest possible type, but this is far from being the case. Published results of a series of experiments at the Stevens Tank, Hoboken, show that a beamy, shallow hull is slower than a deeper, of That leaves 24 points she can when carefully considered. A yacht displaces a volume of water having the same weight as she herself has, hence the energy to create than a deep one (Fig. 4). In consequence a hull that creates a shallow wave one much gentle delivery. Once again no reasons were suggested, but the matter seems pretty clear speed, a shallow wave system (Fig. 3) takes less narrower sail quarter (i.e. 2 points either side of dead astern). observer can form a pretty close estimate. Hence for these calculations L.W.L. is used. Again considering our wave length, I think it will be pretty obvious that although wave systems There are 32 yacht cannot Thus she is upright over 4 points and heeled z the remaining 20 Q.E.D. We have now seen why with increasing knowledge, boats have become longer, narrower and deeper bodied. Let us now see how hull design has progressed in other respects. Once again our data comes from the Stevens Institute. It was found that higher speeds were attained when the forebody had a comparatively blunt entry to the forward waterlines, but that the after body should give a long and length varies with her calculate, A sail Of these she is tail to wind and does not heel when the wind is dead astern or on the design, this proves the value of length. Actually, what counts is really the actual sailing length used, but since this varies, not only from boat to boat, but with every different angle of heel in the same boat, this is impossible to measure points. closer than 4 points to the wind on either tack, so that is 8 points she is head to wind and potential speed compares. We first find the square root of the L.W.L. on any given L.W.L. The yacht is only upright when head to wind or tail to wind. yacht should perform these functions as smoothly as possible so as to leave the water as nearly passage. as possible undisturbed by her Hence a turbulent wake is a sign of bad. design and poor distribution of displac e- ment throughout the boat’s length. This is another thing the practised observer learns from watching a boat’s motion through the water. The reason why water disturbance is bad is that it absorbs energy, and the object is to waste as little energy as possible on disturbing the and No reasons were adduced why 382 | July 1953 water, and leave as much as possible to propel the boat. Another way of considering this is that a turbulent wake means the craft is creating back pressure which must detract from her forward speed. The optimum angle for bow waterlines to make with the centre-line is in the region of 25°. Hence the bow waterlines can be snubbed back with advantage, and this results in a further gain in shortened L.W.L. measurement. It was also found by the Stevens experiments that within reason a square stem is not detrimental in any respect, and this gives us a chance to gain a little more on our L.W.L. length. Using these two features in conjunction, the actual effect is to give the effect of sailing on an appreciably longer L.W.L. than the actual measurement. The nett result is to produce a form that is very slightly “cod’s head, macker el tail.” but, of course, nothing like what used to be implied by this phrase many years ago. It used to be thought that the entry, having to deal with water that is undisturbed, should be longer than the delivery, which deals with water already in motion. The same thing is better done by the brusque attack of the comparativel y blunter bow and long easy stern. Actually the C.B. of a boat, designed on this modern principle, falls on the midship sectio n, or very close to it, and that of the hull prope r without the keel appendage falls somewhat forwa rd of the midsection. In other words the entry is a little shorter than the delivery. Yet once more I must refer to exper iments at the Stevens Tank. Of the force applied by the wind to the sails, only a very small proportion is available for forward propul sion While this may suffice to bring the yacht to her normal potential speed in a smart breeze, it is a different matter in light airs. Hence the question of resistances to forward progress is a very important one and these exper iments were apparent he has to study his wetted surface area for light weather performance, and his water disturbance factors for heavier winds. From this it follows that in all rating rules which take §.A. into account as well as hull dimensions, the designer has to weigh the rival claims of hull and sails to select the proportions that will give him maximum speed for all-round performance. This problem can be stated as a choice between taking more sail at the expense of making his hull lines coarser, or giving sail away to get a finer hull form and a more easily driven boat, and how far to go in either direction. Now it was previously stated that there had been great improvement in the design of sail plans. Wind tunnel experiments at the National Physical Laboratory, though primarily intended for aeroplane wings also apply to yacht sails. These showed that with the wind astern sails are most efficient when their aspect ratio is 1:1 and against the wind 9: 1. Hence the most efficient ratio would appear to be the average (i.e. 5 : 1) for all-round sailing. These experiments were, however, made with rigid aerofoils, and therefore may not apply in toto to yacht sails. One difficulty with such high narrow sails is the difficulty of setting them and staying the rig efficiently. Anoth er point is that these sails wear out far faster than less extreme rigs. It is, however, possible to employ mainsails with a 4:1 aspect ratio successfully. Jibs are a somewhat different problem owing to the tendency of the head to wind. It has been found by experiment that a somewhat larger proportion of headsa il to made to ascertain how they were composed. Broadly these resistances fall into categ ories— friction from wetted surface, and water disturbance. In dealing with the forme r it was aftersail is desirable than was usual a few years ago, also that a jib can have a somew hat lower aspect ratio. One point that has not been resolved about these high rigs, is the proportion by which efficiency per square inch of canvas decreases assumed that the skin had been made as smooth as is humanly possible, since a rough surface can easily double, or treble, skin frictio n. It was as the aspect ratio gets lower. found that at low speeds, such as are made by This is an important point in classes such as the A-class where there are limits on height of sail-plan, but not so important in the 10-R where heightof rig is unlimited, which permits the designer a model yacht in winds of 8 knots or less (i.e. when the speed factor is 0.4 or even less), skin friction represents a full 75 per cent. of the total resistances and water disturbanc e a mere 25 per cent. As the wind strengthen s and the boat’s speed increases, skin fricti on becomes A eae ee less important and water disturbance more important. By the time the yacht has reached her full potential speed, resistance from wetted surface friction has dropped to 25 per cent. of the total, while water disturbance represents 75 per cent. Unless the designer is working on the “ hit-or-miss ” system, it therefore becomes to make the best use of his sail area. (To be continued) 383 oe Sear ; ” atianal Meiukl olaade AT HOVE (CCHARLIE ADAMS, of Nelson Gardens, has LAGOON “ at last achieved his ambition in winning this year’s National Marbleheads at the Hove Lagoon with his attractive Pahie, a sister ship to Tango, which in the hands of W. L. Grint, of Norfolk, came third last year at Witton Lake, built and designed by her skipper. Bill Grint, incidentally, acted as a very capable mate on this occasion. Right from the start Pahie began to notch up points, being placed equal second at the end of the first day’s racing, and going into the lead by the end of the second day. She was still within reach by the leaders on the third day, and both second and third boats made spirited efforts to catch her until the issue was beyond doubt one heat from the end. Twenty-two entries were received from eleven clubs, an improvement over last year’s total in spite of the proximity of the Coronation, whose paramount demands forced D. A. Macdonald boat Pahie wake, the only boat with Braine steering, had six Elusive boats, or “after” Elusive, and one original Kittiwake opposed to him. H. F. Fitzjohn was always dangerous with his Anemone, a Jemima Duck boat with slightly weaker shoulders than the original. Two designs by Tom Harris of the Y.M.6m.0O.A. were of particular interest. C. M. Smith’s Avocet, the first of these, was the only boat with a full keel, and sported a deck-located lifting handle very much in the Danish pattern. Her sister ship on the waterline was G. Adams’ Marguerite, which carried a conventional fin and skeg, and finished several places below the full keel boat. Bill Daniels, as usual, was well represented. His designs included H. F. Day’s Emma, a beautifully built planked and polished craft to Mosquito lines. This was the skipper’s first effort at boat building and made solely with the help of the half-guinea Daniels and Tucker book. Noteworthy was the use of cane dowels for fixing planks instead of the more usual brass pins. P. Stirling sailed Jdle Hour, a boat built by himself, and comprising a Mosquito hull coupled with a Sunkiss keel. Was this perhaps because clubmate Weeks had lead patterns 392 -_— 5 —- Charlie Adams and his mate Bill Grint pose with winning Below: Pahie and Hastings boat Wait for Me wait the whistle for a run with spinnakers set @» to withdraw his Jemima Duck, while J. Stopes was also a non-starter with Rosemary Ann. However, the entry was representative of the leading southern clubs, with two boats from Bristol as the most distant entries. In the matter of design it was something of a field day for A. W. Littlejohn, who, besides his own Kitti- July 1953 handy? Mrs .Stirling was responsible for the fine suit of red sails, and made a very good job of her first effort at sailmaking. Pamela Ann was a development of Daniels design Doris, which won in 1951 with N. Wareham as skipper. This boat was broader in the beam and heavier than Doris, tipping the scale at 22 lb., and had been designed specially for H. E. Quennell, of Clapham. Left (top to bottom): Redsailed Delia and Marguerite on the run Choppy water on a reach featuring the Sunkiss boat Fandango and the sharpie Kukri Lightest boat Kelvin with Suzanne from Danson in foreground Above: Norah, always prominent and another shot of Fandango, Marguerite, and Avocet, another close contender A. W. Littlejohn lets go Kittiwake, the Braine geared boat, a ———— = in a run with Eada 393 MMI ee —_ Fandango, the Sunkiss, design which first appeared at Birmingham in 1952, was again skippered by J. Weeks, of Bristol, who, this year, was using the famous sliding rig. Her performance reflected the results of a year’s further TT SS T Reg. No. | Yacht 567 | Pahie 579 | May Il 628 | Norah 522 | Kukri 645 | Avocet 624 | Eada 498 |Anenome 658 | Fantasia 707 | Snowflake 691 | Marquerite 302 | Kittiwake 558 | Fandango 676 | Wait For Me 402 | Pamela Ann 646 | Delia 693 | Idle Hour 386 | Suzanne 680 | Emma 578 | Buttons 219 | Kelvin Il | Skipper Club C. Adams D. Barber B. Phelan F. Hemsley C. M. Smith B. Barnes H. F. Fitzjohn D. Bateup E. Ladbrook G. Adams A. W. Littlejohn J. Weeks W. Turner H. E. Quennell | C. V. Hooper P. Stirling G. Walker H. F. Day P, Rachelons H. Death | Nelson Gardens Southgate Hove & Brighton Hove & Brighton Y.M. 6m. O.A, South London Danson Hove & Brighton Harwich & D’ert, Hastings & St. L. M.Y.S.A. Bristol Hastings & St.L. Clapham Clapham Bristol Danson Danson Hastings & St. L. Southgate decoration at the waterline. Delia is a sister ship to Wally Janes’ Susan J, designed by Nosworthy. It was the only canoebodied boat sailing at Hove. There remains Eada, skippered by B. Barnes, a competent young yachtsman from South London, which is the original design by D. A. Macdonald Saida, plans of which will shortly be appearing in Model Maker. Finally, we must Choppy water shots of: Kukri and Pamela Ann | Builder C. Adams | C. Adams A.W. Littlejohn | = A. W. Littlejohn A. Levison After T. H. Lance | F. Hemsley | T. Harris A. Levison | D. A. Macdonald D. A. Macdonald H. B. Tucker H. F. Fitzjohn A. W. Littlejohn _ A. W. Littlejohn Felgate T. Harris A. Levison A. W. Littlejohn A. W. Littlejohn A. R. Lassel J. Weeks | A. W. Littlejohn A. Levison W. Daniels — Nosworthy C. V. Hooper Daniels/Lassel P. Stirling H. Wake | H. Wake W. Daniels H. F. Day A.W. Littlejohn — A. Levison A. W. Littlejohn | _— sailing, and took points from the leaders on both beat and run. Local entrant F. Hemsley kad the only sharpie Kukri, which is a_ development of Tommy Lance’s 36-in. boat Lancet, suitably modified to make the most of the rating formula. We understand her skipper has a whole sharpie fleet up to 10-raters! Another beautifully built polished wood boat was C. V. Hooper’s Delia, made by bread-and-butter method from obechi, with a thin plank of mahogany let in to provide a most attractive Designer Ist , 2nd | Day | Day | Total) Place 22 16 16 22 22 23 19 14 22 15 16 16 19 13 12 6 7 16 Il 13 52 49 43 36 39 39 43 39 37 4l 28 35 38 21 24 28 28 25 22 19 I 2 3 4 4 6 7 7 9 10 I 12 13 14 14 16 17 17 19 20 mention the plethora of boats from Elusive stock, which included Wait for Me, Buttons, May II, Norah, Fantasia and Snowflake. Oldest boat, Kelvin II, which had the youngest mate (aged 9 years), was an original Kittiwake design. Skipper, who was very cheerful about being “ slug boat,” received a special “ gallant loser’s ” medal presented by H. E. Quennell. It was the lightest boat in the entry, weighing only 164 Ib.; Fandango was probably the next lightest at about 174 lb. G. Walker, on leave from the Navy, skippered his Suzanne, a skimming dish boat designed by H. Wake, of Kensington, for the light airs of London ponds, and moved up this year to equal 17th place. Veteran Chairman and Secretary F. C. Tansley is to be congratulated on his team of willing officials, and, not least, for the very er i social dinner arranged at the Lagoo n afé. Kukri again with Snowflake; and Emma engaging Fahie 394 65 59 57 56 56 55 54 54 52 5l 50 49 42 40 40 38 37 37 34 24 ee eT MODEL ; MAKER ‘MODEL YACHT CLUB BY ~\ M.Y.A. Midland Championship District 36-in. Restricted HE above event was sailed on the Wicksteed M.Y.C. water on Sunday, May 3, under the most favourable conditions one could wish for, brilliant sunshine with a stiff N.E. wind, which gave a beat out and run home. Six of the Clubs affiliated to the Midland District of the M.Y.A. entered two yachts each, NOTES “COMMODORE” K making a fleet of 12 competing for the “ Frank Pitt” Rose Bowl and the Championship. Amongst these competitors were several well-known boats, as well as new and old, for instance Viking, a pretty little full-keel yacht, had sail registration number 14, and is over fifty years old, while Harlequin, registration number 818, is of 1953 vintage, as readers of the Model Maker know. The racing started at 11.40 a.m. and ended at 4.55 p.m. with a break between 12.45 p.m. to 2.0 p.m, for lunch, during which time many repairs were carried out. The standard of sail- Above and below: Seen at the Whit-Saturday Bournville Regatta in the steering competition, these two boats attracted much admiration in the hands of their St. Albans club ing and sportsmanship was of the high level one has come to take for granted in all M.Y.A . entrants events, and the scoring was very close, the lead- ing boats continually changing places. At one time there were four yachts with equal scores for third place and only three points behin d the then leader. In fact it was not know n until the last heat was sailed who would be the Midland District Champion for 1953. When the points were added up the four leadi ng boats were: Mickey 40, Bedfordia 36, Harle quin 36, and Commodore 33. Mickey is owned by Mr. M. Fairbrother, M.Y.A. Racing Secretary, who acted as Starter for this Championship event, She was most ably skippered by Mr. G. Leed s to win the Left to right: Messrs. Bowness, Tansley, and Honnest-Redlich at the meeting’s close. Mr. Redlich was presented with the bell for his win in the only race to take place, that for radio- Although not radio contro lled this 52-in. near scale topsail schooner attracted a great amount of interest when sailed — minus topsails—at the recent Brighton and Hove meeti ng by local designer-builders Wright and Lipscomb controlled yachts 398 ) | July 1953 “Frank Pitt” Silver Rose Bowl for the third time. Bedfordia and Harlequin had to sail off one board to windward to decide second place. Bedfordia skippered by the only lady competitor, Miss E. Garrett, had the benefit of a perfect trim, and so was successful in gaining the two extra points to make her runner-up for the Championship. M.D.C. 10 R. Championship held at Bournville 17.5.53 Twelve boats were entered for the above, four from Bournville, four from Nottingham, two from Bedford and two from Birmingham. Racing started at 11.30 a.m. with a strong wind veering rapidly from W.S.W. to W.N.W. One round was sailed. The wind was sufficiently strong to make several skippers change down to second suit, and one or two boats sustained minor damage due to rigging, etc., carrying away. The wind continued strong and squally and several skippers had their boats practically driven under. One boat (Silver Spray) sustained a broken mast step, but her skipper managed to keep her sailing. On totalling the scores it was established that Opal (J. Drury) was the winner with 44 points, while three boats tied for second place with 37 points each. The final positions were decided by sailing off three heats between these boats and the final placings are given below: — 1 2 3 4 S$ 6 OPAL JAY SINE METU CORMORANT LADYBIRD CHANCELLOR J. Drury R. Nelson J. Lapseley A. Davis J. Wheeler G. Leeds Birmingham Bournville Nottingham Bournville Bournville Bournville Sailing in the Stantin Cup for 10-Raters on the Forest Gate This latter boat was made by her skipper, R. Blamires. Several members are interested in building the Daniels’ Marblehead Mosquito and would be glad to hear of clubmen who have built and experiences. sailed her for notes on_ their Bournville Regatta The 29th Annual Bournville Regatta reflected the break with tradition in shifting the date from Whit Monday to Whit Saturday in reduced attendance. Nevertheless there were some not- able boats in all classes present, and we take this opportunity of featuring one or two on these Points 44 37++ 37+ ah 33 32 pages. J. Hinton, whose Felix submarine was illustrated in last month’s Model Maker, points out that it was photographed at the 1952 and not 1953 regatta, and more importantly, that it is not powered by calcium carbide which is forbidden by regulations, but of course by a normal motor! We are glad to apologise and make this Doncaster M.Y. and P.B.C. Latest reports of entries for Model Maker gave twelve boats up to May 12; the extension of one month should bring the total up to a round sixteen. (Photo by Ed. Stoffel) M.Y.C, water on May 3rd. correction. Harlequin has been entered by Bedford Regatta Change her skipper, and a good variety of boats from all parts. John Reeves Reelen built by C. Adams, who has just won the Marbleheads at Hove, is also entered, with other entries from Hove and Brighton, Birkenhead, Nottingham and Sheffield clubs. The Doncaster Club have by no means been resting on their laurels and have currently been assisting at the Doncaster Hobbies Exhibition, giving a demonstration of boat building. Sailing recently for their local Davies Memorial Trophy, National 36-in. winner Katinka proved disappointing in boisterous winds, getting a mere two points to winner Usquebaugh’s 13. The Bedford M.E.S. ask us to announce that, owing to the weed situation on their home water it will be impossible to entertain friends there on the occasion of their Fourth Annual Power Boat Regatta. Happily, however, by the kind co-operation of the Wicksteed Club and Park Committee it will be possible to hold the Bedford Regatta on the Wicksteed Park Water on the date already announced, Sunday, 26th July, commencing at 11 am. It is hoped to arrange the usual programme of steering, nomination and speed events. 399