Back to the Future

[HTV Boats]

Been nice to see all the discussion on the decline of outboards. Shows there is interest but a lot of apathy. That said Carls canard hydro inspired me to build something different to test that has been on my mind for years. Maybe others will follow.
So here is a FrankenZip with a readily available TFL lower ($160) and a Leopard 3660/2050kv ($50). I am going to use a Castle controller for the purpose of data logging but a Flycolor 150 for $60 would be a good reliable fit. 5000ma 4S battery.
I hope to share in water statistics good or bad if it even gets on plane.
Mic

 

[Jerry Dunlap]

If nothing else, it looks really cool.
JD

 

[Carl Van Houten]

Mic you can get things done fast! I love the "Frank-N-Zip" HA! Yes, I am a bit concerned about the rear sponson placement but let's see what it will do. If it needs a change break out the hacksaw and epoxy. Glad to see somebody experimenting again. The "Mic-Steering" is a cool way to eliminate battery service headaches. It should work fine.

Waiting on the video now.

 

[Wasted wages]

Love it !!
Think locking down the leg and putting a rudder on the right rear sponson would work??

 

[HTV Boats]

I really think the advantage of an OB is the ability to rotate and turn. Rudders are for inboards,
Mic

 

[HTV Boats]

After the first in water test session, I am learning why canards are in the minority. With the weight of the OB the transom is under water. Did get on plane but very difficult to accomplish. Back to the shop for mods and rear sponsons to carry the weight.


2nd on water test now the boat floats carrying the motor above water. Comes on plane with great difficulty now the front submarines very easily. Bear in mind FE is not thrown on plane like a fuel boat as FE has low end torque to launch itself. It did get on step for s short straight and a couple of sliding turns. With no turn fin was like a drift car.
So now back in the shop for some front anti submarine mods. I fear there will be many add ons and maybe I will just build a wider tub. The Zip was a convectional hydro design and FrankenZip may not be the best Canard candiate. This will never be raced as too difficult to get on plane consistently, A work in progress. It did look cool in a straight line.
Mic

 

[LohringMiller]

You might consider a wing between the sponsons to lift the transom. Stability will still be an issue, though. That's why we went with a rear wing and front sponsons. https://www.intlwaters.com/media/albums/1980-81-miss-circus-circus-canard.1875/

Lohring Miller

 

[DougSick]

The original Fischer Canards had an semi airfoil canard at the back. Fischer's dad worked for Boeing and had access to their wind tunnels to perfect the shape. Too much airfoil and it would lift and too little and it would drag. Saw them run many times and they may not have been absolute fastest out there but Ed was a super driver and could corner 1 ft off the buoys consistently so nobody could catch him. Several of my associates bought the fiberglass ones but the combination of lift, prop and weight distribution was very finnicky and proved to be less successful then the up and coming riggers that were much more forgiving. Ed had it figured out and was not that great in sharing secrets. Before the boats went commercial, any time the boats were out of the water, they were covered with a towel to keep those secrets.
You seem to have discovered the lack of lift with your test model. There is very little aero dynamic support at the back for the weight of the outboard. You rely too much on the sponsons for physical lift which probably drag too much at speed. You need to add something to fill the gap between the booms to give some aerodynamic lift at the back. Fischer ran fairly small sponsons to reduce hull drag. Both had a significant dihedral, probably 5 or more degrees. The right sponson had a steeper dihedral so it would grab the water and act as a turn fin. The hull ski's and their associated drag can be eliminated in that case. You will notice that the Zip and similar boats have their CG much closer to the back than, let's say an Eagle, which is why they can get away with skinnier sponsons. Their weight is supported with the centre ski at the back which starts just about at CG and is quite wide.
The Fischer Canard GG was closer to the back, probably near the front of the wing. Not much weight was put on the shoe at the front, except for launch which got the boat nose up and air flowing under the rear wing.
Lots of good video of the Unlimiteds flying over the water. Very little drag from the sponsons and they use the ground effects air flow (air trapping between the hull and the water) to great advantage. Fischer exploited this effect.
Good luck and congrats for trying something that no one else is doing.

 

[HTV Boats]

Doug,
Thanks for the info. I am learning as I go and so far not great results. At some point you keep patching over problems and need to start over. For now I am challenged to just get on plane consistently and make controlled turns. You are right as more width sponsons and supporting tub seem to be in the future. Coming from tunnels where you have so much nose lift, I see the value of trapping air at the back of the boat. The Canard seems to be a compromise between a tunnel and a rigger.
Mic