Jump to content

pilot

Members
  • Content Count

    221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Suckup

About pilot

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tallinn
  • Interests
    Sailing, gliding

Recent Profile Visitors

813 profile views
  1. I think there was something else broken beside the rudder because he had do disconnect it to restore the control. Otherwise I imagine that fixing it (whatever was left of the rudder) in the upper position would be enough. And I think he would not gave up that easy just because continuing meant swapping the single rudder too often. HB has a very long rod-system and both sides are connected inside the cockpit. I think this is the place where it was disconnected because the rod system was broken and jammed. It is not hard to imagine what the fishing-net does if it tangles with one end around the
  2. Actually only one degree of freedom. How the kick-up system has to work is not specified. Some key points from the rule book that prevents it to be used as horizontal stabilizer.
  3. Ok, lets assume that the keel bulb dug into soft whale meat while the bow was cutting into the next wave. Can one distinguish the difference if the boat is folding at the same time? I mean the speed and pitching rotation is absorbed by folding deformations and there is no loud bang that you are expecting during a collision. Or actually you have to look it in this way that usually the damage is avoided because the bow bounces up while going into the wave. But this time the keel was holding it down and the inertia was burring the bow more into the wave.
  4. After reading Sam's report regarding damages I can't help thinking that Kevin hit something as well. Not an UFO like Sam. Rather a submerged object with the lower part of the keel. If you do it while flying it can crate quite a punishable pitching motion. I think they didn't consider that in their calculations and simulations.
  5. Actually there was one modification in OD parts that was necessary for foilers - the engine coolling water goes through the keel fin now. So, you can't say that they are not evolving.
  6. Here is a lot of confusion around terms. To avoid the confusion we need to look at this in historic aspect: EPIRB - (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon) are detected by GOSPAS-SARSAT (over 406MHz). Historically these didn't have GPS and the location was calculated by measuring the doppler effect. The important part is that their message carries the identification of the ship (MMSI) so that the flag country could coordinate the rescue. These used to have homing transmitter (on 121.5 MHz) for SAR as the doppler effect is not accurate enough and can give hours of delay until enough s
  7. I have some burning questions (like always while reading this kind of rescue stories) - what were the actual devices that proved to be useful or what could have been useful? Was this really an EPIRB that gave up the position of the life-raft or it was actually a PLB attached to the life-jacket? Or they have EPIRB attached to the life-raft? If Kevin had an AIS beacon, why didn't Jean use his AIS receiver to track the position? In the end the position given by CROSS was only 1.5 miles off but he still had to conduct visual search. These devices should have range from 2 to 8 miles dep
  8. He assumes monolithic, but nice to see someone putting in the effort. The central longitudinal bulkhead with cutouts (beam as he said) is definitely quite thin but I am sure that it has thin aramid core in it. It would be too heavy to make that big structure without core. And I assume that this is the main reason why it failed (mostly on the left side) - it is too rigid on side ways. I think the key part in this failure is the right longitudinal beam that was repaired and supported first. He considered these not to play any role in the structure and left those out from analyze.
  9. After a second though over the watertight bulkhead - it might not suffer the same fate to the central one. Central has cutout areas from where these cracks started to develop. This is meant to stand longitudinal compression forces not perpendicular bending forces. But this transverse bulkhead does not have weak-points that close to the hull.
  10. No, the damaged longitudinal beam was on the right side, so it had to be on Port tack. These beams are located in the middle of the flat area. So when it does not support the area, the water pressure will flex the surface inward during slamming and will create a fold like dimple (together with the rest of the beam). That will pull the skin toward the dimple. And that's what created these cracks on the left side of the central. This beam might been broken already before start but was missed during the final inspection. Or it is really a design mistake. It looks like there is a transition f
  11. These cracks in the central longitudinal bulkhead, that he presented as the damage, are only some stress cracks caused by the skin below moving to the right on each slamming bounce. I assume it happened over the long period and there is no such cracks on the right side of the central. But the real damage was in the right longitudinal beam that is seen under compression and fixed by some bolts. This allowed the skin to flex in and by doing that it was pulling the central to the right. So I agree. The major damage is fixed and he will resume racing after the latest position update today. Th
  12. The last generation IMOCAs are a lot more unstable without keel than previous generations were. At least HB and Charal that share the same hull design. This is because foils start to work so early that it is wise to optimize the hull to have less wet surface in displacement mode. This means hulls are narrower and more round. This is pointed out in this video as well:
  13. A new virtual tour is added into hub: https://www.alexthomsonracing.com/the-hub/internal-360-tour/
  14. These pictures and a lot more is available here: https://www.alexthomsonracing.com/the-hub/gallery/
×
×
  • Create New...