[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

[PSUBS-MAILIST] Re: Response to Captain Nemo's attack



Don't be so defensive. My comments were comparative and meant only to 
illustrate. And my choice of wording deliberate. I am quite happy with the 
definition of pragmatic, and was aware of it, although I appreciate your 
concern for the condition of my dictionary. As to the subs, thanks for the 
info. Howver, if you want to compare apples and oranges, then I'd invite you 
to study the facts prior to doing so.

My K-boat has no internal trim tank, for instance. If you had checked, you 
would note that the internal tank is reserved for the two shallowest of 
George's designs. The system moves outside on the 600 and 350 foot designs. 
And there is no need for an elaborate ballast system as the Metacentric 
Height is sufficiently tall and the hull short enough to do without it. The 
Ks themselves are built like tanks, just as you say .... as in Sherman or 
Patton tanks, and are simple for a reason. Your references to acrylic 
failures are puzzling, and collision resistance (?) and relative 
survivability inadmissable as evidence without proof. None of us will be too 
happy if a port fails or a tour boat runs us down. So what's the point? 

As to Captain Kittredge's little submarines, I hate to see anyone sneer at 
them like that, as they have served quite adequately for thirty plus years as 
the foundations for lots of psubbers (and long before the phrase was coined). 
No one puts the Model T down, even with a new Taurus in the garage. They are 
both cars, but not the same. George built almost 50 subs himself, and has 
sold over 400 sets of plans. That sounds pretty successful to me. He was one 
of the original pragmatists in that results are the absolute best test, and 
from that viewpoint, his Ks have been a huge success. By success I mean that 
they have fulfilled precisely the designer's intentions. I hope that the same 
is true for you and your Nautilus.

And no, I did not mean, "Captain Kittredge's submarine" when I spoke of my 
K-350. Your intended sneer misses the mark. It is Captain Kittredge's DESIGN, 
and MY submarine, and I suspect that we all knew the difference.

Your Nautilus is a marvel of ingenuity, and I've no doubt that you are as 
clever as you say. I suppose that nearly all of us have mooned over Nemo and 
dreamed of the Nautilus at one time or another, so to actually play the role 
and have the submarine must be wonderful. Congratulations!

My problem is that I just don't much care for the inference that because you 
are clever and inventive, that others are less so. Perhaps you misunderstood 
my use of the word "fantasy" in the context of my email. I might have been 
better served using "fanciful" instead, and only then in reference to the 
appearance of your Nautilus. I meant, simply, to illustrate the two extremes 
of a narrow definition. Captain Kittredge's design, on one end of the number 
line, would represent the most basic and least complex example, and yours, on 
the other, would represent something based on a VISUAL fantasy and much more 
complex to carry out. Both serve the purpose but use and function vary 
according to experience and desire, which is, I believe, what I said. 

We have psubbers who want to recreate Sea View, American fast attack subs, 
and drag boats in a pressure hull. These are fanciful, only in that they are 
capacity restricted due to the constraints of task specific criteria. If you 
want to build a 20 foot replica of a World War II Fleet Submarine, then fine. 
But it is not going to be very useful in close surveillance of, say, a wreck 
off Key Largo. Unless it becomes a Fleet Boat much modified. My only intent 
was to illustrate the broad spectrum of interest in our little community, and 
not, certainly, to attack the skills and imagination of one of our members, 
let alone the product of those skills. So lighten up a little, will you?

Best Regards
Vance