To answer that question you have two obvious choices. Human interaction, by button or lanyard and seat of the pants input. Or human armed and computer activated system. Lets face it, a computer can calculate the angle of attack changes and estimate where the bow will be in next 30ms based off gyroscopic forces and speed quicker than you or I could ever hope by feel. However for a computer to make an accurate calculation, it needs baseline data to base that math off of. Which currently we have zero.

https://youtu.be/LDHx7_LTwWA

I wrote the app, and built some test rigs to start collecting data two years ago yesterday actually. Hardware cost about $100 a unit or less. Cellular based it even streams data live back to whomever you wish. When offered for free to all SBI teams in exchange for the data, it was shot down in flames... Without the data to build a working deployment model, human input is the only other option.

When in middle school I was a crew member on a 7 Litre Hydro Team. (I washed the boat and held it in the water waiting for the 5 minute gun) - anyway this boat had a system in where it would fill the sponsons with water should the front get light. So it would work like this...coming out of the turn, the driver would get on the gas, and start letting water out. If the boat felt good, he would continue to let more water out to "fly the hull" they called it all the way to the turn, at which time he would fill them back up so it would settle down really quick, could drive deeper into the turn, and could turn fast without rolling over. If going down the straight the driver felt the front getting light and rising too much, he would open the inlet, and it would fill the sponson up almost instantly. During the few years I was doing this I saw at least 12-15 boats go over, ours never did, and it held the lap speed record for whatever the course length was I don't remember.

Of course I realize a big difference between a 22 foot boat weighing almost nothing running about 145 MPH, and a 40+ foot boat running 175+, but a way to control weight in the front very quickly is perhaps something to think about?

What was their reason? Why cant you sign a NDA not to divulge to other teams and used for safety only. Its for their benefit.... WTF?

Technology havs been proven by Cirrus customers many times now. Watch video just below "Parachute maker BRS says 324 lives have been saved to date in successful full-airframe parachute deployments."
http://www.flyingmag.com/another-cir...aught-on-video

While there is no need or time to deploy such large canopy as used by Cirrus, a similar approach using a smaller drag chute deployed by an airbag inflation technique would be quickest. We estimated trigger to fully open chute in under 250ms at speeds over 100mph. When teamed with a computer controlled trigger, you'd be slowing down before you ever felt you were going up...

You built an AHARS unit it looks like.. I built one using a RY835AI 10Hz USB GPS Glonass BeiDou antenna module pressure Compass Gyro sensors and a raspberry pi

Actually Rik, that's a Samsung S3 mini stuffed inside a pelican case... :D

Samsung uses the best 9-axis MEMS chips on the market. So after exploring all off the shelf and breadboard options, it became clear that an Android app written for a $100 used cell phone would be just as accurate and more reliable than building something from scratch. That app along with several others now are available on Android for free. I have the PC side software also for anyone who wants it.

But yes your certainly on the same page. Data data data..

Sorry this is getting this thread off course, but I built a "Stratux" is why I used that Chip.. Problem is the system cannot read the AHARS so it was kinda useless feature so I bought a VK172. Both are WAAS enabled

No disrespect to all these ideas and concepts, anything to help make high speed boating safer is welcome to most, but think of what you are trying to do here.

To make one of these boats safer would be like taking a 57' Chevy and putting enough HP in it to compete with Top Fuel dragsters. You may get the speed, but the car design is antiquated beyond modification to be safe and stay together. And this is where the boat builders are in 2016. There is no real functional design technology in any of these boats. The only way to make them safer, is to go longer, and that still isn't a guarantee as we know from the Outerlimits blowover!

With these speeds, the responsible thing for a manufacturer who would like to compete in this superfast category would be to "start from scratch" and engineer a design specific boat for around speed, technology and safety. That would require a tremendous amount of money, like 10's of million$$$$, a seriously steep learning curve and real world testing with the use of wind flow dynamics and tunnel data. Just so they can design all kinds of technology that hasn't been created and tested yet. Remember, in the offshore industry, it's only 1957.

Oh, and I would guess that we would end up with something more like a trimaran, not a cat.

I have not been on OSO for a long time but the carnage of late is hard to ignore.

Tunnel boats are absolutely wings in that they create aerodynamic lift via a pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the tunnel. Whilst an aircraft in free flight derives 2/3 of its lift from the upper suction part of the wing, a wing in extreme ground effect is the reciprocal. The suction portion of the wing produces the same quantum of suction lift as in free flight but the pressure side of the wing (by virtue of its proximity to ground (water)), produces vastly more lift. When combined with the effective increase in aspect ratio , GE lift is very efficient and that’s why aerodynamicists have been chasing this Holy Grail for over a century.


HOWEVER these poor chaps in the Skater are just the latest victims of GE’s dark side - The change in Cm (pitching moment) and centre of aerodynamic pressure (CP) when the wing (tunnel) starts to rise from the water and/or increase its angle of attack (AOA). In extreme GE, the CP is roughly 40-50% of the chord (subject to AOA, aspect ratio, section etc). Due to their ‘dirty’ upper side (cockpits etc) and very low aspect ratios, tunnel boats derive very little of their operating aerodynamic lift from the suction side of the wing (which acts at roughly 25% MAC). This explains why a tunnel boat’s CP is closer to the centre of area (i.e. 50% MAC) when in GE. However once the bow starts to rise, the CP moves towards the freestream point of 25% MAC and the nose down pitching moment decreases. Most tunnel boats have their lcg at roughly 70% of the chord, so once the bow starts to rise the CP moves further and further away from the lcg, and we all know what happens next. This is exasperated by the fact that at higher AOA's the tunnel starts to create vortex lift (same as Concorde) by virtue of its low aspect ratio. Therefore instead of stalling (as a conventional aerofoil would at a high AOA), it keeps on lifting and then (as mentioned in a previous post) pure drag takes over. If you look at the video of this most recent tragedy, the angular velocity is shockingly high. It shows just how out of balance the boat is (at this velocity) once it loses the stabilising support of the surface. Tunnel boats are partial aircraft with no means of aerodynamic control and negative aerodynamic stability (lcg is not even close to the CP once a perturbation which causes a bow up pitching moment occurs).

For those that have not been enlightened by Mr. Szolack’s astute decision, fly at high velocities at your own considerable risk,

ND1

DUDE, ARE YOU SERIOUS?
I can tell you're smart, but please put this in layman's terms.