bb15080 Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 the underside looks a lot better. I think you have now more power to move the boat around
Sam42 Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 Nice, if you could squeeze some train weights into the blade the it'd lower the centre of gravity and move it rearwards nicely too.... I'm really interested to see how this affects the control in the next sea trial!
efferman Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) i dont think that train weights would be a good idea. because the blade and the finished afterdeck it is now at the back to heavy. so i need more flotation force at the back. by the way, the current weight is 2660 grams. a vid of the newest testrun will follow later this day Edited March 13, 2012 by efferman
Omikron Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 What generates that weight? I mean the battery box and motors are big part of it but isn't the hull "empty" inside ?
Zaiocrit Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Truly a beautiful creation, technical and aesthetic !!!
efferman Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) What generates that weight? I mean the battery box and motors are big part of it but isn't the hull "empty" inside ? well, even lego is built with plastics it has a weight. as an example the 5x11 panels. one of them has 9grams 9x43= 387 grams. then all the liftarms, pins, axles, connectors, plates and electric parts. iam surprised that it is not more heavy edit: conclusion: moving straight sidewards is not possible with the stabilizer sword, but normal steering is much more easy Edited March 13, 2012 by efferman
Sam42 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Wow, 2.6kg, that's a lot of grey panels! Maybe additional ballast will not be required! I thought the blade would inhibit sideways motion, would it not be possible to counteract this with differing inputs to the two sets of vanes? eitherway she sails nicely! Also its great the way it now looks like a monohull tug when its in the water... Edited March 13, 2012 by Sam42
bb15080 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Effe try to make the sword smaller but leave the plates under it. i think you don't need a big sword a small one would stabelize it more then enough. just use 4 of these at the back
efferman Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 only the 4 cornerparts and no straight panels? i think it is to 99.5 percent finished 101_9247 von efferman auf Flickr i hope you like the smoke pipes
bb15080 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 only the 4 cornerparts and no straight panels? yes only the four corner parts the way it is now is that your system has to push your sword with massive force. with a smaller sword it is less on the other hand you tug is wide enough to stay up I like the cabine starting to look like the real deal
efferman Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 yes only the four corner parts the way it is now is that your system has to push your sword with massive force. with a smaller sword it is less this will surely work good, but i like the design of the sword and i dont want left it. maybe one panel less in the length is a good compromise
bb15080 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 this will surely work good, but i like the design of the sword and i dont want left it. maybe one panel less in the length is a good compromise you could try it out but it's going to be a though compition with this one in it
Stu83 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 stabilizer sword This is normally known as a 'skeg', apparently from the Norse for 'beard'. Fantastic model! Have you tried sideways movement using only the after Voith-Schneider unit? It is about at what would normally be the pivot point and might be a little more successful than both together as the forward unit will tend to cause the yawing motion you have experienced.
efferman Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) This is normally known as a 'skeg', apparently from the Norse for 'beard'. Fantastic model! Have you tried sideways movement using only the after Voith-Schneider unit? It is about at what would normally be the pivot point and might be a little more successful than both together as the forward unit will tend to cause the yawing motion you have experienced. thanks for your suggestions, have you to do with marine vessels? iam powering both voith scheider units with a single PF-M Motor. so i could not drive them separately and the pitch is only to control the direction of boost. the pitch of the two units i can change separately, so i can maybe prevent the yawing movement with an other boost direction of the propellers. Edited March 13, 2012 by efferman
Stu83 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 thanks for your suggestions, have you to do with marine vessels? Yeah, I'm a Merchant Navy deck officer, but I have never worked with Voith-Schneider propulsion so I'm not totally familiar with how best to handle it. Does the mechanism allow you to set one unit to neutral pitch and use the other for transverse thrust?
timslegos Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I like the smoke stacks. Could you make them black maybe instead of red? tim
efferman Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 unfortunately i can only give a direction and not a zero pitch timr, yes this should be possible but then there is no contrast between bridge and smoke stacks
timslegos Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 timr, yes this should be possible but then there is no contrast between bridge and smoke stacks True, i think the red works . tim
Siegfried Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 Y'know, when I first saw this model I had my doubts that it'd be anything more than a mechanical example, but it actually looks pretty good now.
Siegfried Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I'm locking this topic to prevent it being bumped. Please post all comments in the new topic.
.thumb.jpg.2335d10c31c9ffa7029728589340e12f.jpg)
Recommended Posts