Boat stuff

[autogyro]

While I am not in favor of the idea,,Especially as proposed.
AS for safety I have to admit that today's drivers already cope with playing with more controls than even Hall or Gurney could have envisioned and after all hydroplane drivers fly their boats with movable wings already,,,,, ooops...of course that's often with disastrous results but what the heck.

In shore tunnel hull boats are flown, mono hulls are simply pitch controlled.
Hydoplanes are mono hulls.

[aral]

In shore tunnel hull boats are flown, mono hulls are simply pitch controlled.
Hydoplanes are mono hulls.

I take it that you are not a sailor. Monohull refers to the shape of the boat when it is going through the the water. Catamarans are twin hull boats. But both, when they are planing, are largely now controlled through aerodynamics. A hydroplane hull is in fact a wing. Even the off shore bruisers are now sprouting wings. Once a boat (whatever configuration) is planing, it is subject to aero forces, and minimal hydro forces.
There is another type of craft that uses wings, but with these in the water. foilers. These can be mono, cat or tris.

edit. I should have explained that these are power driven craft. Yachts use different parameters, but foilers are also in use on them.

[autogyro]

Hmm I did design a Rover V8 outboard engine for an OZ tunnel hull inshore racing boat gilgen and a mastless sailing racer if that makes me a sailor.
IMO tunnel hull boats are truely 'flown' with decent although not perfect control.
Mono planning hulls are less controlable in aero pitch.
One of my 'ancient ' friends was also very successful with hydroplanes way back in the 1930's. He also won the 'Seagrave' Trophy among others. Worth looking up, few people own that one.
I worked with Tom Percival briefly the year he lost his Mercury sponsorship. He regained it the following year and died in Holland avoiding another upturned boat.
He was the world champion. 120 mph on water, try it sometime.
Monohull is a general term for a single hulled boat. How the hull goes through the water is a much more complex issue. Displacement, flat planning(hydroplane) single stepped (offshore planner, flying boat float) multi stepped (off shore multi sea state and others).
Compared to the simple model aeroplane technology in F1 it is miles away.

[aral]

Hmm I did design a Rover V8 outboard engine for an OZ tunnel hull inshore racing boat gilgen and a mastless sailing racer if that makes me a sailor.
IMO tunnel hull boats are truely 'flown' with decent although not perfect control.
Mono planning hulls are less controlable in aero pitch.
One of my 'ancient ' friends was also very successful with hydroplanes way back in the 1930's. He also won the 'Seagrave' Trophy among others. Worth looking up, few people own that one.
I worked with Tom Percival briefly the year he lost his Mercury sponsorship. He regained it the following year and died in Holland avoiding another upturned boat.
He was the world champion. 120 mph on water, try it sometime.
Monohull is a general term for a single hulled boat. How the hull goes through the water is a much more complex issue. Displacement, flat planning(hydroplane) single stepped (offshore planner, flying boat float) multi stepped (off shore multi sea state and others).
Compared to the simple model aeroplane technology in F1 it is miles away.

I am sure that there are many posters who make claims to designing everything under the sun! I too have friends, one of whom was at the forefront of power cat design and racing! hydroplanes nowadays are considerably different to those of 30's and do rely heavily now, on aero.Incidentally, a number of these do have stepped hulls. this reduces laminar flow of liquid. designing a Rover v8 tunnel hull is nothing. v8 powered tunnelhulls have been around for yonks. but your mastless sailing boat intrigues me. presumably it is a kite boat!

[autogyro]

Hmm I did design a Rover V8 outboard engine for an OZ tunnel hull inshore racing boat gilgen and a mastless sailing racer if that makes me a sailor.
IMO tunnel hull boats are truely 'flown' with decent although not perfect control.
Mono planning hulls are less controlable in aero pitch.
One of my 'ancient ' friends was also very successful with hydroplanes way back in the 1930's. He also won the 'Seagrave' Trophy among others. Worth looking up, few people own that one.
I worked with Tom Percival briefly the year he lost his Mercury sponsorship. He regained it the following year and died in Holland avoiding another upturned boat.
He was the world champion. 120 mph on water, try it sometime.
Monohull is a general term for a single hulled boat. How the hull goes through the water is a much more complex issue. Displacement, flat planning(hydroplane) single stepped (offshore planner, flying boat float) multi stepped (off shore multi sea state and others).
Compared to the simple model aeroplane technology in F1 it is miles away.

I am sure that there are many posters who make claims to designing everything under the sun! I too have friends, one of whom was at the forefront of power cat design and racing! hydroplanes nowadays are considerably different to those of 30's and do rely heavily now, on aero.Incidentally, a number of these do have stepped hulls. this reduces laminar flow of liquid. designing a Rover v8 tunnel hull is nothing. v8 powered tunnelhulls have been around for yonks. but your mastless sailing boat intrigues me. presumably it is a kite boat!

I would just love you to point me in the direction of another Rover V8 built as an 'outboard' gilgen, I do not know of any. This one stood on its head.
The problem with hull mounted engines in OZ inshore racing is that they compromise the cornering speed and tightness by putting mass at a moment to the thrust point and there were and still are, plenty of inboard engines tried including F1 units. Mine was a 500 bhp turbocharged V8 outboard unit with a surface prop, engine bouyancy and a gimbel transom designed to tilt the engine in the turn. How many of those have you seen?
Send me a confidentiality agreement and I will make you a fortune.

You could describe the yacht as a kite boat. It was designed to use higher altitude wind to avoid getting becalmed and to allow different altitude wind directions.

Last race my friend won was the 1957 Missourri Marathon by the way. A long history. I agree that aero plays a bigger part in modern 'clambacks', I was pointing out the better aero control on a tunnel hull. Very precise by comparison.

[aral]

Hmm I did design a Rover V8 outboard engine for an OZ tunnel hull inshore racing boat gilgen and a mastless sailing racer if that makes me a sailor.
IMO tunnel hull boats are truely 'flown' with decent although not perfect control.
Mono planning hulls are less controlable in aero pitch.
One of my 'ancient ' friends was also very successful with hydroplanes way back in the 1930's. He also won the 'Seagrave' Trophy among others. Worth looking up, few people own that one.
I worked with Tom Percival briefly the year he lost his Mercury sponsorship. He regained it the following year and died in Holland avoiding another upturned boat.
He was the world champion. 120 mph on water, try it sometime.
Monohull is a general term for a single hulled boat. How the hull goes through the water is a much more complex issue. Displacement, flat planning(hydroplane) single stepped (offshore planner, flying boat float) multi stepped (off shore multi sea state and others).
Compared to the simple model aeroplane technology in F1 it is miles away.

I am sure that there are many posters who make claims to designing everything under the sun! I too have friends, one of whom was at the forefront of power cat design and racing! hydroplanes nowadays are considerably different to those of 30's and do rely heavily now, on aero.Incidentally, a number of these do have stepped hulls. this reduces laminar flow of liquid. designing a Rover v8 tunnel hull is nothing. v8 powered tunnelhulls have been around for yonks. but your mastless sailing boat intrigues me. presumably it is a kite boat!

I would just love you to point me in the direction of another Rover V8 built as an 'outboard' gilgen, I do not know of any. This one stood on its head.
The problem with hull mounted engines in OZ inshore racing is that they compromise the cornering speed and tightness by putting mass at a moment to the thrust point and there were and still are, plenty of inboard engines tried including F1 units. Mine was a 500 bhp turbocharged V8 outboard unit with a surface prop, engine bouyancy and a gimbel transom designed to tilt the engine in the turn. How many of those have you seen?
Send me a confidentiality agreement and I will make you a fortune.

You could describe the yacht as a kite boat. It was designed to use higher altitude wind to avoid getting becalmed and to allow different altitude wind directions.

Last race my friend won was the 1957 Missourri Marathon by the way. A long history. I agree that aero plays a bigger part in modern 'clambacks', I was pointing out the better aero control on a tunnel hull. Very precise by comparison.

Not wanting to get into a long argument, but the Rover V8 was originally built by Buick for use by Mercury as a marine engine.Mercury went for another v8, so if you did make a Rover V8 outboard, it would not have been too unusual!
Kite boats have been used for a large number of years, and have even been considered for cargo ships. But you say that it was to attain higher altitude winds to avoid becalming. You would have to have the kite at more than 2000 ft, to be able to get the remotest wind above a sealevel calm. This would be almost impossible to achieve or to control. I do know that at one time, a kite powered dinghy, held the sailing speed record for a while, but was then beaten by sailboards, and recently by a foiler.

[autogyro]

Mercury used the Ford range of V8s as inboard engines and outdrives not outboards.
I had an Almarine 18 foot speed boat with a 351cu inch Merc/Ford converted to Ake Miller hillclimb spec at 600bhp, same as my drag Mustang engine.
You can pick these Merc/Fords up for peanuts in Europe, far to juicy.
The Buick was the engine the Rover was based on and we used the larger capacity stronger Buick for a number of experimental applications including an aero engine with dry sump. It is the first time I have heard that the Alloy blocked V8 Buick was designed for Mercury. I find that difficult to believe, although I do not doubt it was considered by Mercury. They may even have produced a marine unit.
I know of no V8 Mercury oatboard, the OZ engine regs are open for any engine at least they were. The Mercury V6 two stroke was the most used in the formula.
Heavier larger capacity engines were no good inboard because of cornering and the standard upright transom mountings for outboards, were no good with to much engine weight high up (outward roll on turns).

Sorry mods we should get back to moveable wings and upcoming regulations.
Mind you it looks like the regs are pretty much decided on in favour of aero yet again. F1 goes back another few years.

[strad]

Way off topic but trust me, You fly a Hydroplane

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay001kGZ7lU[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vbGFiYExTs[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFdV9pc64eQ[/youtube]

[autogyro]

Thanks for the vids strad.

If you do not actualy fly a hydoplane they can very easily fly you.
These American formula hydroplanes are tunnel hulls anyway and not mono hulls.
The definition is the problem. The term used to be applied to mono hulls with the driver laying prone. ( showing my age again)

The OZ class are full tunnel hull and turn much better than these large inboard engined boats.
The speeds are not to far apart either.
I accept that these American boats are controlled in much the same way as OZ inshore tunnel hulls with the addition of a front canard wing.
Anybody who drives any of these boats has a lot more guts than an F1 driver by the way.