- Description of contents
MAY, 1957 ((( MOBEL MAKER A iOE NEW AND ATTRACTIVE MARBLEHEAD DESIGNED BY = LTHOUGH there are many variations on respect the personal opinions of others on this unfair lines in the bow and with the heeled lee waterline forming a more or less continuous curve up to the point of max. beam. Designs Truimph, Senlac, Floreana, Doris H., etc., are in this category. The other trend has extreme bow flare or snubbing on the deck in order to achieve a long bearing length when sailing heeled, to help to reduce the tendency to bore and also improve the hull balance. This has, however, the effect of coarsening the lee for’d waterline. Designs point. Certainly it is impossible to have every advantage in the same design. Hornet is a natural design with no forcing of the lines to fit in with any one particular theory or trend and all curves are as fair as the limited length will allow. All buttocks are similar in style and merge into the profile with ease. The problem of Marblehead bow design has always been controversial due largely to the general weakness of this class to bury when driven hard downwind. such as Witchcraft, the Ducks, etc., are in this ; Now for many years yachtsmen were under i \ rh il 2 mera as = ——— — ——— —— SE won fos \ ° the former category the writer is prepared to groups, the first of which having no appreciably \—\ === and their advantages and while Hornet is in class can, in general, be divided into two main _ HORNET WITTY class. Both these groups have, their adherents the Marblehead theme, design in this GM) se @) S. SA AS DRAWN SECTIONS SPACED 792 40 = San CB i 240 LEAD I4 L6S \ PUASYS,, the impression that their craft were blown along and not for some time was it realised that the greater part of the driving force was and is derived from the lee of the sails. In other words the main motive power is obtained by suction. Exactly the same thing happens under a yacht hull in motion, with pressure building of the (1) A sensible width of transom. (2) A reasonably shallow hull section. (3) Medium displacement. pressure of the sailplan. It seems a basic misconception to suppose that the variable force of wind pressure can be neutralized by the constant force exerted by a full bow. The problem can best be solved by watching the action of the larger-class yachts, almost all of L.W.L. end, as in “A” Class and 10R designs mum beam, whereas in the “M” Class the beam at this point is usually much less. I feel the whole problem is to a large extent a result being carried to Rather than use any form of bow snubbing the combined forces of which should be more than enough to counteract the downward this is nearly always more than half the maxi- balance theory to obviate this basic fault I would prefer to use other methods such as: up on the for’d hull and suction on the run, which sit up when hard pressed whether they plane or not. The reason for this cannot rest with the design of the bow since, except in the initial stage of a squall, the bow sections are lifted clear of the water altogether. In the writer’s opinion the key factor is the proportionate amount of beam in the stern at the hull extremes. 1-9/5 -7, (4) An easy turn in the lines of the mid- (5) (6) A sailplan of moderate aspect ratio. Sharp and easy fin sections plus moder- (7) All overhang to be in the bows. section. ate draught. These features have been progressively developed into the lines of “Hornet” over the last ten months and, unlike most “M” Class designs, she should be capable of planin g during a blow. It will be noted that the foresail is carrie d well clear of the deck thus allowing for a powerful tension strap to be used. This is an advantage which should be realised to the fullest extent in this class since as only actual sail area is measured there is no loss of area as in the larger classes. Also such an arran gement appreciably assists the balance of the sailplan as a whole. ~~. aa — —— Full-size plans of Hornet are availa ble, MM/472, price 10s. 6d. post free. Other Marblehead drawings in our range includ e: Design Designer L.W.L. Beam Disp. 39 9:9 17-6 MM/106 10/6 10 20 MM/201 10/- ‘BI ‘24 MERLIN Garrett FESTIVE Daniels 46 POLARIS Andrews 48-6 SUNKIss Lassell 50 SAIDA ’ 9-7 No. Price MM/250 7/6 18:7 MM/268 9/6 20°5 7/6 Macdonald 47 TONGA BELLE Lewis 49:5 10-6 22:4 MM/323 9/6 WINDSONG Tucker 475 10-5 22:2 MM/335 10/6 10 N.M/295 WITCHCRAFT Priest 47 11 22, MM/342 10/6 MITHRAS Macdonald 46:2 11 23°7 MM/408 10/6 WITCH Priest 49 10-6 23-2 MM/462 10/- MODEL MAKER PLANS SERVICE 38 Clarendon Road, Watford, Herts — 241 oy oe ww ——<“«_ a mer Pa MAY, 1957 COMMENT 0on R:°C: YACHT RACING RULES OME interesting comment has been received on the subject of the proposed M.Y.A. rules for radiocontrolled yacht racing, which were the subject of an article by N. D. Hatfield in our March issue. Three of the letters received are reproduced below; MopeL MAKER rarely makes editorial remarks—it always seems a little unfair, since we can always have the last word!—but on this occasion we feel that we may avoid unnecessary complications by commenting on some of the more obvious points of controversy. Hence we have introduced figures into the text, following statements which we believe may be disputable. Comment from R. H. R. Curwen The first letter received was from R. H. R. Curwen of Shaftesbury, Dorset, who says: “Tt is indeed good news that the M.Y.A. are on the point of drafting a set of rules to govern classes and racing. In general I consider that the suggested rules are sound, but the proposed classification of models will I think be extremely unpopular with Marblehead owners, and could only restrict the development of the sport. Almost all of the existing R/C Marbleheads are fitted with control of both helm and sheets, and their owners would I am sure be extremely unhappy to have no further opportunity of racing with full control. I assume that the proposed exclusion of R/C sheet control from Class II is intended to assist the beginner who may start with a simple pulsed C.W. outfit; but in any case the automatic sheeting would require some form of electrical winching gear, and therefore it would probably be an easier matter to add a couple of relays to obtain full control than to construct a vane operated switch together with the follow up gear to control the sheets automatically. Furthermore, although a yacht fitted with automatic sheet control should, all else being equal, be faster round a course, many skippers get far more satisfaction out of sailing in the real manner; and therefore I would suggest that no distinction need be made either between the two systems of sail control or between the types of radio gear that may be used. If it is intended to introduce a class with control of helm only, then I would suggest that a Class III should be added to cater for the 36-inch boats. But while the beginner should be encouraged in every way, I consider it unlikely that he would wish to enter competitions until he had gained some experience; and after his first sail with helm control only, he would not be satisfied until he had added some form of sheet control. My observations are based on the experience of the M.P.B.A. at their regatta for R/C model power boats in 1955, when to encourage the beginner, a special competition was held for boats of any type fitted with simple sequence steering only. In spite of advance publicity, only one entry was received for this competition. With regard to suggestion No. 4, I am puzzled as to why crystal control should be recommended for Class II only, as frequency control is desirable, but not John Oliver, of the famous father and son Oliver engine concern, is a yacht r/c fan, and is seen here with his 10-rater, which enjoys full sheet and helm controls. John has been working on radio control for several years—though may be lost to full-size sailing now the family live so near the coast essential, to prevent outside interference in all cases. As things stand at present, crystal control is essential] to allow simultaneous operation of more than two yachts in the 27 M.C. band without mutual interference and infringement of the G.P.O. regulations. As a 10 Rater owner, I have no axe to grind in the matter of classification, but it might perhaps be recorded that the published results of the Y.M. 6-m. O.A. regatta are inaccurate. If Mr. Hatfield will check his records, I think he will find that my own 10-Rater Windrush put up a faster time than the winning “A” Class yacht sailed by Mr. G. Honnest-Redlich.” Another Reader’s Views. Next, from P. F. Cook of London, S.W.1, come the following observations: “TI was interested in your survey on the proposed M.Y.A. R/C yacht-racing rules in the current issue and would like to make one or two comments. I suggest that the techniques of remote control of model yachts are still in a very early development stage and that it is undesirable to make the regulations so rigid as to narrow people’s interest. It is noted that two classes are proposed with different forms of control. But having investigated a number of arrangements, I can assure you that there are many useful ones which would be difficult to define as, I think, Class 1 or 2. It is extremely difficult to design an automatic sheeting system which is not in some way associated with radio control signals (1). There is, in fact, no clear-cut distinction. One of the most favourable arrangements which I have investigated could be considered as complying 243 MODEL with either class. The only item directly under radio control is what might be termed the analogue computer with the other facilities of control and sheeting controlled from (2). I not at Finally, over to the London Group of the Inter- national steering, vane this comcuter would, therefore, make a strong avveal for present, making any regulations as to the form of the controlled parts. Presumably, the intention of the M.Y.A. is to have one expensive class and one cheaper one. I do not think the rules as framed will helo those with limited budgets. Clever ideas are the best means of reducing cost and if rules inhibit these, then the basic intention will not be realized. _ transmitter), and the other practicable to make good, sport, it will cheap we is is that the should be much more likely of remote control to get which Following more my theme radio that what we need the is sport to of 3. he should not forget that the radio enthusiast, for whom the actual cost of radio control equipment is not high, since he makes his devices from comobtained on the surplus market, finds that the model yachts are incredibly expensive things! It is, therefore, with considerable interest that I note the intention in Rule 2 to delete minor restrictions from the class rules. Some of these so-called minor restrictions, e.g., prohibition of metal vanes or fins and the insistence in the Marblehead class of a minimum radius at the intersection of hull and fin increase the cost very considerably. I would like to suggest that the rules be simplified to maximum L.W.L., overall length, sail area (for simplicity’s sake please let this be actual sail area) and all-upn-weight. Allow the rules to permit of boats such as catamarans, which are so much cheaper for the inexnerienced boat builder to construct. Doing this will open the snort to many who hesitate at the moment, and it seems to me the wider the interest, and: the greater the diversity of ideas encouraged, the nearer we will get to the cesire for cheap and simple remote-controlled yacht racing.” to published in March statements made like to make the following in comments: set At the moment there sezms no purpose in the separate classes suggested. There no evidence of the superiority of system. 2. model yacht racing, thoughts should be directed towards the cost question from all angles. The yacht owner may be embarrassed when he enquires of the cost of ready-made radio apparatus. But ponents article the suggestions made for a two yet, so simovle, cheap avod mutual experimenters into would Our opinions on interference, if more investigation is made into the alternative forms to radio. I think it is important, therefore, that any form of remote control be permitted (4). attract the MAKER and of rules are as follows: framed as to embrace not merely radio control, but all forms of remote control. It is my view that we are systems to to give a lead for some time to come. We would be extremely happy to work in co-operation with the M.Y.A., however (5). be quite selective rece vers rules regard MopEL not in a position to give a lead in this branch of the sport. We think that the I.R.C.M.S. are in a better position to assume authority and to continue 1. point signed accelerating during 1957. According to Mr. Hatfield. the large majority of members of the M.Y.A. are not interested in radio control, we therefore do not think that the M.Y.A. should assume authority for Radio Controlled Yacht Racing; they are definitely crystals. further Society, Model Yacht racing has been gradually developi ng due, to a large extent, to efforts made by member s of the International Radio Controlled Models Society. The first contest which was Organised by the Society occurred about seven years ago; progress has been slow but steady since then but is rapialy (the super-regen will have to go!) and stable transmitters without the use of inflexible and expensive A Models a letter we have received from Mr. N. D. Hatfield, It should be pointed out that the transmitter stability is not the maior factor in avoiding mutual interference; the important thing is the development of selective receivers. I am convinced that if you interest a sufficient number of radio enthusiasts in this “With issue. of vantages: one is expense (a minimum of £4 increase the Controlled Take-over Bid by I.R.C.M.S.? I also object to the insistence of crystal controlled equipment for Class 2. All that is needed is a rule that the transmitters shall be stable in frequency. How that stability is achieved should not be the concern of the rules. The crystal is only one way of obtaining this stability and it has two big disad- in the cost of inflexibility (3). Radio by A. Tamplin, Vice-Chairman of the Society, and G. Carrington-Wood, Chairman of the London Group. 4. 5. 6. is, as either The A class is better than the 10 Rater, both are equally difficult to transport and there is more room in an “A” boat for radio equipment (6). Marbleheads are really too small for satisfactory racing with control gear now available, furthermore and most important, they are also very difficult to see well when any distance from the operator. Col. Bowden and Mr. Honnest-Redlich have both expressed this opinion (7). A one-design class with resin bonded fibre glass hulls may eventually be evolved for the very best R/C racing. We agree about the course, but care should be exercised never to set one using any particular buoy for turns in opposite directions during one race due to the inevitable collision between the leaders and the runners up should they meet there. As many boats as possible to race simultaneously but crystal-controlled equipment is not the only means of avoiding mutual interference. Timed sailing is useless as far as yacht racing is concerned; -it is only useful as a means of testing radio control. Stationary transmitters are the order of the day with contemporary equipment but better racing might be obta'‘ned if these were completely portable and allowed freedom of movement of the skippers during the course of a race. We agree in full, also with 7 and 8. Referring to the successful and most enjoyable regatta held at the Rick Pond last October, it is interesting to note that the majority of the competi-tors were members of the I.R.C.M.S., these included both winners. The timed event won by Mr. Honnest- Redlich was a good test of radio control but in no 244 MANE way could it be considered a yacht race. The afternoon’s event showed great promise for things to come. With proper organisation between competitors etc., should be adhered to as much as possible. One learns a lot from protest meetings and they can be most entertaining too! With models we would have a considerable advantage from the fact that the whole course can be keenly observed by the race officers throughout the event. The regattas held at Poole annually, have indicated the above points very well indeed.” and suitable equipment it will soon be possible to race far more than five boats simultaneously. Commenting on the views and objections raised by some M.Y.A. Members, we would say: (a) Expensive yes, but a one-design radio-controlled class would probably cost less than a professionally-built “A” class or 10-Rater model. A onedesign would not date or be “outclassed,” the radio and intergear could be modified with advancing techniques without scrapping an expensive hull and rig. (b) We fully agree, as things are now, one needs to be a telearchic expert as well as a competent Editorial I. 2. 3. skipper, but eventually our radios, etc., will be suitable for operation by non-technical people. (d) ‘(e) (f) (g) 2409'S:7 4. After all, one does not need to be an electronic engineer to operate a domestic radio or televison receiver or to dial a number on an automatic telephone and it is many years since one had to be a mechanical engineer in order to drive a car. We do not agree altogether with this criticism, see note 5 above. It is difficult but not impossible to operate in wet weather, fog could be the worst enemy! Boats with electrical gear can certainly be made suitable for reliable operation in heavy weather. Spinnakers may eventually be used but absolute speed, if all boats are nearly equal, does not matter and dses not necessarily improve racing. If we wanted absolute speed we would not rely on sails at all. We would go further and say that timed events are not races at all and should be considered as purely radio control trials, see note 4 above. 5. 6. 7. Aspect. An excellent system was published in “ Radio Control of the M Class Arrow” in May, 1955 MODEL MAKER, by American expert C. O. Davis. If more than the helm can be adjusted by remote control, obviously the system falls under Class 1. We are reliably informed that the cost of fitting a crystal is two short lengths of wire plus a maximum of 30s. for the crystal. Sonic control? Selenium cells? Is there a reliable, interference-free, weatherproof system? This appears similar to the attitude of the I.R.C.M.S. to the S.M.A.E. some years ago, when the former wanted to control R/C model aircraft contests. It was felt that the I.R.C.M.S. should not attempt to usurp theefunctions of an oidestablished national body which is an accredited member of the international organization controlling a_ sport, especially since the ‘“ International” part of the I.R.C.M.S. title is entirely self-chosen. Subsequent events in the form of organised contests have shown the wisdom of the decision made at that time by the F.A.1. If we had the choice of carrying a 30lb. 10-rater or a 56lb. A boat for any distance ...! Mr. Tamplin’s A boat Kit carries 14lb. of radio gear—surely far in excess of what is desirable ? Marbleheads may be difficult to see at Poole, but a water of this size is quite exceptional and on the average lake there must surely be little to System of Racing. choose between Ms and 10Rs? May we remind interested readers that our columns are open for them to air their views on this importaat subject, and that the more views that are heard the better for the chances of evolving a sat'sfactory set of rules. Next, please? Racing in pairs may be a good scheme but not as a timed event. The American tournament system might be better where everyone competed against everyone else and totalled the number of wins. for maximum points. Eventually different sized boats could not compete against one another, handicaps are extremely difficult to work out, as we know from practice with full-sized craft. The suggested starting system is excellent but competitors should endeavour to cross the line as soon as possible after the starting whistle not the two minute warning whistle. SS ee Sailing Rules. We agree that the R.Y.A. rules should be adhered to as closely as possible but might eventually have to be modiiied in some respects after experience is gained from miniature racing under these articles. Therefore we concur but with two exceptions. (vi) An overtaking boat remains so until she is clear ahead of, not just level with, the overtaken boat. Infringement of the Rules should incur disqualification, not a time penalty, we think the Editor’s remarks are perfectly correct. Collisicns must involve infringement of the rules which are drawn up so as to avoid accidents in full-size practice. There are many rules which w.ll not apply to models, for example, that dealing with man overboard and accidents. Of course these would be omitted from our type of racing! We think that the regulations regarding protests, Eleven year 245 old Richard Copsey with his prize-winning Royal Falcon. Young Richard built this himscif and took first prize and a special award at the Batley Round Handicraft Show Table’s POWER TO YOUR ELBOW SS MORE tool grinding machine, milling machine grinder and polisher. Extra fittings are available including jig saw, circular saw, threading attachment and flexible shaft. Length overall is only 164 ins., centre height is 12 ins., and it takes between centres 63 ins. In expert hands it operates within .001 in. tolerances, a degree of accuracy by no means to be despised. For those who need a lathe but have no possibility of a workshop, it is the answer. Our old friend Reg Collins was so enamoured of the one he borrowed for the recent Boat Show demonstration that he has now had one set up in his home workshop for model boat building. We hope readers will find this short summary useful. We feel sure that acquisition of even the simplest of outfits will so speed up their production rate and reduce elbow-grease that they will marvel at the ease with which results can be obtained. Just for the record, and to show we practice what we preach, the Editor is Bridges equipped, Vic Smeed is a Wolf, and (Coniinued from page 225) nomenal - rate, the advent of a book devoted to their use is most timely. H. Author Banus has dene for the home craftsman what others have done so success- fully for the model engineer — provided an extremely valuable treatise on the best possible use to which these very versatile tools can be put. Until now the user has been forced to rely on manufacturer’s leaflets which have given little more a than assembly instructions, and a few “dont’s.” Their sales literature has given glowing accounts of the possibilities of the accessories available, but trial and error has been his testing ground. In Portable Electric Tools will be found all the advice needed to make such tools pay their way from the very start. We like the division of chapters into specific uses such as Drilling, which covers all ancillary uses, such as chisel mortising attachments and holesays; Grinding, Wire Brushing and Flexible Shafts, which includes hand and bench operation, wood-cut making, plastic engraving and a host of subsidiary uses; Cutting and Shaping, which covers pocket cutting, cutting thin material, fretwork marquetry and so on. There is so much of value in its 150 pages that this book should certainly be in the hands of every model maker who possesses, or contemplates buying, an electric drill. It will be a constant friend and consultant during many years of work, so that its stout binding is a necessity rather than a luxury. our managing Editor swears by Black and Decker. For those still working under oil lamps, gas-lighting, or in unaccommodating “digs” we must apologise for so using our space, and trust they will bear with us on this occasion. Now a Book on the Subject! PORTABLE ELECTRIC TOOLS. By H. BANus. 150 pages size 84 x 54 in. Art paper cloth bound, coloured dust cover. Over 160 illustrations and 19 original designs. Published by C. Arthur Pearson Ltd. Price 15s. With three highly reputable manufacturers waging a mighty battle to secure the portable power tool market and bringing out rival accessories at a phe—_— —- CHEROKEE (Continued from preceding page) a face-lifting course and it may land you among the winners. The foundry articles which recently appeared in these pages were designed to allow everyone to undertake yet another interesting branch of the hobby of model making, and the castings required for this engine will naturally tax your capabilities as a moulder. I do advise intending constructors to lay by a supply of aluminium for this purpose— the car breakers yard is an ideal source of this material, so go along and obtain a dozen or so old pistons preferably from the same make of car, and use these when the time comes to run your metal. I shall include some notes on the casting of aluminium later on in this series so do not let the sight of a few deep fins deter you from attempting this process; with average skill there is no reason 249 why you should not produce an excellent casting Well, there is “Cherokee”, the first of a line of engines that will eventually appear in MODEL MAKER; all of them I must hasten to add you can build with the aid of a 4-inch lathe, a drilling machine and the usual kit of hand tools. While I shall give instructions in these notes on hsw to accomplish a certain operation and drawings of the various details as we go along, there are readers, and I must confess to being one of them, who always prefer to work from drawings rather than make their copies of this journal dirty and greasy through continued reference in the workshop. Befiére these notes appear I shall have all the necessary drawings ready for the print department, so you can order the sheets as construction proceeds, and I can give you the assurance they are fully dimensioned so no reader should become “stuck” through lack of information. (To be continued) MAY, RECENT point concerns mast from slides. correspondence received In many modern rm designs, UCKER’S the designed mast position is a comparatively short distance ahead of the C.B. Since the boat’s C.G. falls in the same fore-and-aft position as the C.B., the hatchway has to come over the C.B. if the yacht is to balance conveniently on the carrying handle. Hence, the sliding mastplate is liable to foul the forward hatch coaming, if the mast has to be moved aft from its designed position. This is quite simply overcome, and in fact it really improves the mast slide as it makes it lighter and smaller, as well as permitting the fitting to be placed closer to the hatchway. By way of seeing how this works, let us consider the mast slide for a 36 in. Restricted Class yacht. The mast is +in. diameter, and a movement of I1in. either way is required. In consequence, the hole through the fixed deckplate must be 4in. plus (2 x 14in)=3in. The plate must be approximately 4 in. longer that the hole at each end, which will give it a total length of 4in. As we have to provide for 14in. movement either way, the sliding plate, which carries the mast hole, will be 4in. plus (2 x 14 in.)=64 in. total length, and will project 1} in. at either end beyond the deckplate when the mast is in the central (or designed) position, and an extra l4in., or 24in. in all when moved as far aft as possible. If, on the other hand, in lieu of making the sliding plate with ends of equal length, one end is not given the 114 in. extension, we save this length without sacrifice of length of adjustment. The only difference is when we want to move the mast aft, the sliding plate has its short end aft, and when the rig is to go forward, the short end goes forward. One word as regards the holes in the sliding mastplate for the locating pin. These should be at +in. intervals on either side, but those on one side should be staggered so as to fall midway between those on the other, thus providing 1/16in. adjustment and a nice control of both position and rake, since the slots in the mast-step rack will be spaced +in. Recently I received a most indignant letter from a reader who has owned “M” Class “Ducks” of both the “Jemima” and “Emma Duck’ designs, in which he complains of Mr. B. H. Priest’s comments on “Ducks” in his article on his new design “Witch,” and urges me to reply. Now I never compare other designers’ work with my own, and it was, therefore, not my intention to reply to Mr. Priest’s remarks. Incidentally, “Ducks” have since their introduction in’the 36 in. Class nine years ago, and later in the ““M” Class, attained quite a successful reputation. Moreover, after all this time, “Ducks” still manage to hold their own, provided they are properly built and well handled. My correspondent pointed out to me that Mr. Priest’s knowledge of “Ducks’’ is confined to the one at Birkenhead. I happen to know all about this particular boat, and although she outwardly resembles one, she is very far from being a true “Duck”. So much: so, that in my own mind I had written her off as a “dead loss.” In building a “Duck’’, it is most important not to exceed the designed weight. In fact ‘Ducks’ go better if they are slightly on the light side. They are also very sensitive to fore-and-aft trim, and must never be the least by the head. In addition light construction is important in the ends, particularly in the nose. The Birkenhead ‘‘Duck’’, when she came out, was overweight, heavily constructed in the bow and by 257 -1957 TOE CAEe TALKS MAST SLIDES DUCKS & ncw esr th CLUB SAILING e y, the head, as far as I can gather. In spite of this, she put up a fairly good performance to windward, but was slow-running instead of planing readily, as is strongly characteristic of the “Emma Duck” design. In lieu of reducing displacement, especially forward, the owner gave her a lump of trimming ballast aft. He got the nose up and improved the running somewhat, but killed her windward work. So apparently another piece of lead went in forward, and so it went on, with a steadily degenerating performance. _[ saw this boat sail in the 1955 “M” Class Championship at Hove, and on the second day when it blew hard, she was like a_half-tide rock, and appeared to be by the head to windward and by the stern running. If it was not strictly prohibited by rule, one might have imagined that not only was she much over her designed displacement, but was also using shifting ballast. Other “Ducks” in the race seemed to be revelling in the hard wind, and two were in the 6-boat Final (out of 44 starters). Sometimes one receives a letter which gives one genuine pleasure. I had one recently from a gentleman who wanted a “Duck” design. He sent me pictures of this first two boats, apparently very nicely built on the triple-skin principle. One of these was an IO-II which he says is a very fast and satisfactory 10-Rater. I have had contrary reports on this design —some favourable, some unfavourable. In due course, I found any trouble usually stemmed from the builder having made the fin too bull-nosed. which made the yacht too ardent. However, it was not his comments on his 10-Rater that pleased me so much as his account of how he took up model yachting. I am quoting from one of his letters, but have slightly altered the wording in order not to reveal his name, club, etc. “I had just returned home after losing my wife, and was suffering from a nervous breakdown. I often watched the members of the local M.¥Y. Club on Sunday mornings, and thought I would like to build a boat to take my mind off my bereavement and troubles. I went to the local Public Library to see if they had any books on the subject, and was fortunate in finding “Model Sailing Craft,” though I did not know who Messrs. Daniels and Tucker were, or that there was such a monthly as the MoDEL MAKER, while L.W.L. length did not mean a thing to me. I read the practical section on Building, and decided to build a boat on the triple-skin method. “My hull was finished, when I was introduced to some of the local M.Y.C. members, who were very interested when they learned I was building a tripleskin boat, as nobody in the club had tried that method. That is how it all began, and I have found the hobby of absorbing interest. I am sure it has enabled me to regain my health and find fresh friends.” Now wouldn’t a letter like that make you feel that everypning one has done for model yachting is worth while?
