[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS multi-ring-size hull
Warrend - I see the problem on a other point..
You should not design the boat - I mean thats not your job in this
project- your job is to make guide the project in a logistic or
political manner.
Look for guys able to make the hull design and calculations - cheap easy
and safe. And give them the border - say something like " the group
wants not more weight than that.. and min. this dive deep.. and a fiber
outside hull " or something like that. Than look for other guys
which make the drive train - give them borders like "min. that speed
and that range is required".
Later on if both group get angry about the other group - because of some
technical borders they reach (and must reach - or the waste material,
money or weight)- your job really starts..
>From my point of view it makes no sence to make first
a big diameter hull, require big hull tickness and heavy frames
- and than use part of this volume as soft tank or free flooding space -
and a pressuretight deck in the hull is a technical advance..
..from a static point, from a welding point, from a cost point, from a
corrosion point. - cheap means simple..
We should use a Kittredge size and style sub and look what we can make
to make a better performance - without to increase the cost to much.
If we find out that this kind of sub design has to much limits - we
can switch to a bigger boat.
I make many drawings with two guys sitting side by side in a sub
and complete in the hull- no one on this designes can be travel behind
normal car. So I don't build it.
very best regards Carsten
Warrend Greenway schrieb:
>
> Uhhh. That would be too heavy, obviously. Are your calculations
> assuming that the 2 meter section would be hollow? I mean, I was
> assuming that the 2 meter section had a solid deck in it, thereby
> reducing displacement. Also, I did take my own advise and try the
> mock-up idea. 2 meters would be nice, but that sections of the hull
> would be just fine at more like 1.25 meters long by 1.8 meters, with
> a corresponding drop in the size of the smaller section. If this
> displacement problem were resolved, which I believe it can be, do you
> see any other problems with the general layout? Like I said, a deck
> would be used inside to reduce volume, since it is really the width
> that is nice, the height can be reduced by .5 meters to reduce volume
> and provide ballast.
>
> Warren.
>
> > Warrend Greenway schrieb:
> > >
> > > I would like input on the hull concept I have drawn up. The link is:
> > >
> > > www.restorides.com/~dub/
> > >
> > > This is bouncing off the modular idea. The bow is a minimal length endcap
> > > in this concept. The main hull with hatch is 1.5 long by 2 meters in diameter.
> >
> > Just 4,83 ts (10662 pd) (salt water)
> >
> > > The smaller section of hull is 2.5 meters long by 1 meter in diameter.
> >
> > Easy additional 2,01 ts (4437 pd) (sw)
> >
> > maybe some more 1,5 ts (3311 pd) for the rest.
> >
> > so just a 8,34 ts boat with a maybe (?) 1 ts trailer.. all together =
> > 20618 pd.
> >
> > 8,34 its the weight of about 5 Kittredge size subs.
> >
> > regards Carsten
> >
> > > The
> > > entire tail section would be a bolt on modular unit. Ballast tanks, battery pods,
> > > HPA tanks, etc. would be arranged against the hull at the thin section to "flesh"
> > > out the entire hull to approx same diameter. A fiberglass fairing would then cover
> > > the aft section. Does this help?
> > >
> > > We need to get a pretty firm grasp of our basic pressure hull, including weight
> > > and dimensions before we can finalize the preliminary design. The refined hull
> > > design would then be undertaken in parallel with the other major units. Note:
> > > I did not add flange seams, I am assuming that they are inside. I talked to a
> > > highly respected mechanical engineer at work and he had some compelling flange
> > > ideas that necessitated the flange being internal.
> > >
> > > Warren.
> > > --
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > http://www.linuxmail.org/
> > > Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
> > >
> > > Powered by Outblaze
> >
>
> --
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.linuxmail.org/
> Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
>
> Powered by Outblaze