Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: CG Calculations, Trim, Bouncing, Driver Weights etc.

  1. #1
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kingston, WA
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default CG Calculations, Trim, Bouncing, Driver Weights etc.

    I' am getting back into boat racing after a respite since 1963 with the grandkids. These six kids come in all sizes and weights thus CG becomes a consideration in trimming. Recent experiences with aviation taught me how to calculate CG for various components and from that experience I make the following assumptions:

    Once a boat (runabout) is properly trimmed for smooth water you calculate the CG for that condition. Then you trim a boat for rough water and calculate that CG.

    Assumption Rough water optimum CG is forward of smooth water CG

    Assumption, regardless of driver weight etc. That CG point goes with the particular boat, prop and setup configuration. This is the optimum trim setup for the boat.

    Thus, if you are going to have multiple drivers of varying weights in a boat; you will have a wide envelope range of CGs for the drivers. Performing multiple calcuations, I have discovered that lighter drivers with multiple weight distribution anchor points on the boat have the widest fixed CG range.

    Larger drivers have a narrower fixed CG range but a wider CG range in live action. They can move their weight around inside the boat and affect performance to a greater degree in real action.
    Lighter drivers need to have their boat more closely trimmed for the existing conditions.

    I have seen this play out to heavier drivers who are 30-40 lbs overweight in A class handling the boat with authority in varying water conditions while the lighter drivers need to throttle back in rough water.

    From the above I surmise that a more closely optimally balanced runabout is more beneficial to the lighter drivers.

    Also given an optimum CG point for each boat and water condition. You can calculate weight distribution on paper (ie computer) for each driver and not need to real time test each setup for each driver and still get the same results.

    What are your thoughts on these assumptions and am I missing anything here in this thought process?

  2. #2
    Sam Cullis Mark75H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Annapolis, MD USA
    Posts
    1,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    That would assume all props are actually identical and boats likewise


    Knowing that these 2 variables are not controllable, you are still obligated to test, test and test. Assume nothing.
    Since 1925, about 150 different racing outboards have been made.


  3. #3
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kingston, WA
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You are correct.

    I assumed the same boat, prop, setup, envirionmental conditions. When you change drivers you need to adjust weights to maintain the same CG to repeat the same trimmed ride. That was my premise. That can be mathamaticly calculated thus eliminating the need to test each driver for the same conditions.

    Now you change prop, setup, weather conditions etc. and it is test, test, test. I don't know of any way compensate for that. If you properly docucument all these tests and know the optimum CG for each condition, you can then develop a body of knowledge to proactively adjust the CG for anticipated conditions.

    Smiley

  4. #4
    Sam Cullis Mark75H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Annapolis, MD USA
    Posts
    1,795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    In J you do not get to use your own props, you use APBA provided props. Doesn't that put you back at square one?
    Since 1925, about 150 different racing outboards have been made.


  5. #5
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kingston, WA
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You are right again with respect to J. In fact everyone has the same disadvantage in that everyone must use a prop provided by the racing club sponsoring the race. According to Craig Dewald, he can make a J copy from his J pattern that we can use for testing but of course we all know that it is near impossible to make an identical prop with the same characteristics. Hence everyone has that problem. I was told that there ia about a 2 mph variance in the club props so it is the luck of the draw.

    Now with AXS and A that is a different story. We have control of our props and setups.

    In private aviation, as a pilot, we are required to obtain all necessary information for a flight. One of those items is CG calculations for fuel, baggage, pilot and passengers to insure we are not over gross and within the operating CG envelope. For optimum speed, you want a rear CG loading. This gives you the fastest speed but also the least stability and the most difficulty in landing with adequate control at slow speeds. Everything comes at a cost.

    Forward CG loadings require down force on the horizontal stabalizer which increases drag because you must now lift that downforce plus the weight of the plane and the increased angle of attack on the wing increases drag.
    This also becomes a dangerous situation when landing at low speeds. There may not be enough downforce on the stab and elevator to prevent a nose wheel first landing which can be very dangerous. I assume we should have our boats properly trimmed as well for similar reasons.

    Smiley

  6. #6
    - Skoontz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Encinitas, California
    Posts
    581
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Don't get too confident with J props and duplications. We have always had difficultied planing using J props from the club boxes, and never had an issue using our own J prop. 99% of this problem was using an AX/A boat to race J, when a decicated J boat needs to be used to run optimally in J class.

    The inset transom of the A/AX boats is the largest issue, also the dedicated J boats are a tad shorter, like 8" or something.
    Bill Schwab
    Dirty Deck Brewing
    Company

  7. #7
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kingston, WA
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I have heard that from other sources as well. As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, but the J setups need more distance from the bottom trailing edge to the prop. This is so, when stepping onto the plane, the water flowing from the trailing edge has a chance to rise, or stated another way the prop has more water to bite and increase thrust to push over the top. The A and AX setups prefer closer to the transon so the rear can be lifted up and create air under the boat!!!! Is this a correct assumption?

    Smiley

  8. #8
    Tomtall
    Guest

    Default Yes

    The A and AX setups prefer closer to the transon so the rear can be lifted up and create air under the boat!!!! Is this a correct assumption?
    Correct - Some things to consider and it's only my observation setting up my sons boats.

    1. You must get thru the corners and pop the bow as fast as possible coming out of the corners. Weight placement plays into this.
    2. Body weight does play a roll in acceleration out of the corners.
    3. Hydros like weight midship/back. Runabouts like weight midship/forward.
    (on our boats)
    4. Every prop change usally requires a little different set-up.
    5. No two drivers drive the same or always like other peoples set-up.
    It's a personal feel thing.
    6. I have seen many people fight weight placement with no luck in changing boat handling problems when the real problem is the hull itself.

    Good Luck and keep good records when testing.

  9. #9
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kingston, WA
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    "1. You must get thru the corners and pop the bow as fast as possible coming out of the corners. Weight placement plays into this."

    Does this mean you shift your weight to the rear for straight-a-way attitude near or at the end of the turn for optimum acceleration and top end.

    "3. Hydros like weight midship/back. Runabouts like weight midship/forward.
    (on our boats)" Does this mean that for runabouts you want to shift some of the weight load towards the front of the boat and have a flatter angle of attack to the water? More wetted surface on the water and/ allow more lift from the rear by the cleaver prop and up thrust? Doesn't this get squirrly?

    4. Every prop change usally requires a little different set-up.
    5. No two drivers drive the same or always like other peoples set-up.
    It's a personal feel thing.
    6. I have seen many people fight weight placement with no luck in changing boat handling problems when the real problem is the hull itself.

    I can see that. You must have a true bottom else any contact intermittant or constant with the water will create erratic responses. This is the same in high precision aerobatic performance of real and model airplanes. All lifting surfaces in both aviation and boating must be straight, true and rigid for predictable and efficient performance.

    Smiley
    Good Luck and keep good records when testing.
    __________________

  10. #10
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kingston, WA
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    "1. You must get thru the corners and pop the bow as fast as possible coming out of the corners. Weight placement plays into this."

    Does this mean you shift your weight to the rear for straight-a-way attitude near or at the end of the turn for optimum acceleration and top end.

    "3. Hydros like weight midship/back. Runabouts like weight midship/forward.
    (on our boats)" Does this mean that for runabouts you want to shift some of the weight load towards the front of the boat and have a flatter angle of attack to the water? More wetted surface on the water and/ allow more lift from the rear by the cleaver prop and up thrust? Doesn't this get squirrly?

    4. Every prop change usally requires a little different set-up.
    5. No two drivers drive the same or always like other peoples set-up.
    It's a personal feel thing.
    6. I have seen many people fight weight placement with no luck in changing boat handling problems when the real problem is the hull itself.

    I can see that. You must have a true bottom else any contact intermittant or constant with the water will create erratic responses. This is the same in high precision aerobatic performance of real and model airplanes. All lifting surfaces in both aviation and boating must be straight, true and rigid for predictable and efficient performance.

    Smiley
    Good Luck and keep good records when testing.
    __________________

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Trim Limit ??????????????
    By FLYING BUTCHER in forum Technical Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-05-2008, 05:03 AM
  2. Results
    By rossdbos in forum Outboard Racing History
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 06:09 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •