Jump to content

Richard98

MYA Member
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Richard98 last won the day on April 25 2019

Richard98 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Richard98

Personal Information

  • First Name
    Richard
  • Last Name
    Moroney

Recent Profile Visitors

877 profile views
  1. Hello again Jorge, Had a look through my Paradox notes and remembered that Brad Gibson updated one fairly recently, with some success. One area was the fin and its location. The leading edge of the fin was moved aft to 627mm from the transom, measured along the hull. The fin rake is taken from a datum point 500mm down the L/E edge of the fin, from the hull. Then from the lower tip of the bow it is 855mm to this point. This would apply to Dave Creeds fin I believe. I do not have a Marblehead any more and I am sure that if you asked BG he would give further advice. Richard
  2. Unfortunately Tiggy Cat is right. The hull material does not allow reliable bonding; even when thorough prep is carried out. However one of the many great things about the DF boats is their price and I have seen new hulls for sale very reasonably after owners have "traded up" to coloured ones. By far the best solution. PS don't even consider silicone; that will ensure that a permanent repair can never be done. Richard
  3. Hello Jorge, I used to build the Paradox under licence to Graham Bantock. If you go the his Sails etc web site - downloadable documents you will find a drawing for Paradox. The drawing is annoyingly split, but still useable. The Centre of gravity of the fin is marked and corresponds to the C/E of the fin. Dave Creeds fin is not the same shape, I know but if you measure the C/E of his fun and use that as a datum on the drawing, the correct hull position will be obtained. Grahams drawings have all the info and measurements you will need, then. I have done this very exercise o
  4. I was really impressed by the DF95 after looking at the design process it went through and the great value for money. So I bought one and remained impressed. Only niggle was the rudder tube play; practically auxilliary steering ! I had proposed adoption of the class by our club; Loughborough Radio Yacht Club. I took the boat to Charnworth Lake one Sunday morning to allow members to play with it. Now Charnworh is renowned for it's fickle/absent wind and here is the point of this missive. The IOM's simply left the DF95 for dead in the light wind. Embarrassingly so in fact. There was the li
  5. John, We sailed on Charnworth lake; Loughborough Radio Yacht Club's water. A notoriously fickle water with light/no wind very often. I was sailing my old, but up dated, Image IOM with an experimental shroudless carbon mast. I am going to "dual rate"the Image as a USOM as another project. The displacement reduction with a 1.6Kg ballast will slightly reduce the WL, but will come onto the 1 metre when heeled anyway. A bit more wetted area / a bit more form stability a bit of fun. The US rule does not appear to ban ballast changing, so when the wind pipes up; use the IOM ballast and fin. Wat
  6. Had the pleasure to sail my IOM in company with Tho's US One Metre recently. Very interesting comparison indeed. On the water the expected performance differences, as a consequence of the lighter displacement on the same waterline and rig, results in predictably distinct pro's and con's which probably equalise overall. A mixed fleet would be extremely interesting. The rig is a revelation compared to the IOM and so much easier to set up and transport. Also cheaper. The rule is far simpler too with measurement very easy. Really impressed and seriously tempted to follow suit;
  7. Sailing !!! Second outing, after a few tweaks. Sails very pleasantly, perfectly balanced and very responsive. The trim tab works but would need to sail in company with a similar boat to gauge efficacy. Possibly not enough wind to detect any improvement beyond that of a biased imagination. The un-stayed carbon mast makes rigging really quick and the boat much easier to carry, with less to snag. I would not like to carry and launch anything in excess of this weight ( just under 10 Kg all up) though. Can manage to carry to the waters edge in One Metre fashion; one hand on L/E of fin and
  8. I have used both of these, Dave lent me his (some time ago of course) and also Eric's one. Dave's was a Rolls Royce piece of engineering and easy to use. I had to prevent the centre wheel of Eric's from swinging; which was causing un repeatable bends. Both have to be extremely carefully used to avoid rotation whilst bending. Also care to avoid working the soft alloy and making it more bendy. Despite what some may say; this does take a lot of practise and a supply of old masts to do it with. The need for mast pre bend and the requirement for special tools only adds to the complexity of sai
  9. Thanks Mike, for you comments, that have been a great help and your question here. I love the overall impression of the 6M, but wanted a boat that made real use of the size and provide an exciting alternative to my One Metre. I ploughed through the 6M rating formula and ended up with a sail plan comparable to a "Star yacht". The crippler was the draft penalty. I saw no point in building a boat of this size with such a tiny righting moment. Increasing the fin depth seems easy to do; so I did it ! Actually more than doubling the righting moment for what is still a modest draft of 340m
  10. Progress: Rigged up and just awaiting the ballast casting. This is a planform type intended to improve the efficiency of the keel in association with the trim tab. Have reduced trim tab area after further calcs.
  11. My lockdown project boat is progressing well, thanks to a fair amount of input from members. Bought as a planked, scaled down, Moby Dick design and being hacked about by me to make a sort of "what if" 6Metre yacht. What could a 6M be if not quite so constrained by sail area, keel depth and hull contorting measurement rules. NOT intended as any criticism of the 6M, which is a lovely class to look at, just an exercise in what could be done. I have removed 0.5Kg of internal structures /deck. The original fin, rudder & skeg and 7Kg internal ballast also lopped off. A new c/f keel
  12. Just waiting for my Flysky FS i6, which is the same as the Turnigy (thanks Tiggy Cat) just a different label. I assume the 3 position switch is easily assigned. The only reason I ask is that the manual does not specifically mention that switch (c) on the assignment instructions. I had one of these when I bought a DF95 last year: really impressed by the boat and the Flysky and only sold on because our club showed no interest in adopting the class. Interestingly, the rig is quite useful and I may put one together for the trimaran. Boat progressing well and looking forward to floating
  13. Thanks Tiggy Cat, that TX/RX looks just the job. Off to buy one now (metaphorically in current circumstances of course) Richard
  14. Thanks Bill, I know Peter quite well and, as you say, Always helpful. Poole is a bit far away now though. Thanks Mike, looks like I may need to buy a new TX then, one with a 3 position switch. Info on tab settings very useful indeed. Richard
  15. I remember sailing an International Canoe, Mike, the sliding seat was fun. May need to start a new thread: Servo control for trim tab. We used an analogue system on Transpac's but I assume radio sailing will be a digital switch Left/off/right. What sort of servo is necessary ? My Futaba TX only has two position switches so how is trim controlled ? Richard
×
×
  • Create New...