[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS multi-ring-size hull
You are right, Carsten. I am not really attempting to design
the hull here. What I am trying to do is get a concensus on
size and general configuration. You made a goog point on that
subject, though: We are already limited by weight. When it comes
down to it, that is the clincher. So here's what I'll do, I'll
write a spec sheet that takes all the details that takes into
account all the feedback, and assumes a final weight that is still
reasonable. I will work on this today. The people who sign up for
the pressure-hull portion of the design will just have to see how
much they are able to squeeze out of that weight limitation. It
sounds like everything else critical is resolved enough to move on.
Thanks a million for your input!
Warren.
> 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
>
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze