An afternoon session with a "deflector bar" underneath the lift fans and having blocked up more of the holes in the front bulkhead in an effort to get more air to the rear has produced only a very small improvement. Un less the weight is absolutely in the right place it tends to nosedive or the back end is just dragging in the water. Oddly enough it went really well over the wind blown debris in the leeward pockets of the pond….could be important on a Sunday when i answer critical heckling over its hovering capability. As i was about to decamp and put the mucky craft in the boot, I had a whim to try it on the car park, and boy…did it go!!! i was running after it the little wotsit.It didnt have a battery in it as ballast mind you. I recon the real thing will weigh less that half the current 1.6Kg prototype, so in actual fact the skimming weight across the car park may well be the final actual weight as finished (I will only put one coat of undercoat and one topcoat to save weight!)
As to improving the situation I am going back to basics as per Sir Richard Cockerell and the SRN1 (coz the original didnt have a skirt) and will box in the bottom of the fuselage and allow the air to escape around the underside edges via holes….this will even up the air distribution at the expense of a tiny loss of efficiency (possibly) ideally the air would be directed inwards from angled tubes. This would be easy to adjust at the pondside as I would make lots of holes, and tape them up, untaping them a few at a time to note the effect.. ALSO I wondered about angling the foreward thrust motors downwards by just a few degrees to assist in levitation.
Sorry, have I lost anyone yet?? Len, still interested in a hovercraft? Ashley