[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS multi-ring-size hull
I actually toyed with the idea of an oval cross-section pressure hull a few
years back. Mostly to reduce the draft of the vessel to enable it to come
closer into shore in the lakes etc. I somewhat abandoned the idea as more
complicated and expensive. But maybe it could be looked at.
Jay.
"Warrend Greenway"
<dub@linuxmail.org> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Sent by: cc:
owner-personal_submersible Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] OSS multi-ring-size hull
s@psubs.org
16/01/2003 11:07 AM
Please respond to
personal_submersibles
Well, you're right about the flooding part. Well, you are basically
right altogether. I didn't say quite what I meant to. What I wanted
was the beam, more so then the height. I want the pilot to sit side-by-
side with one passenger and both have a clear view forward. This requires
elbo room, but no more then sitting height...But I am cooling on the
free flooding part, since it could become a structural nightmare. In
reality I was trying to minimize the volume of the 2 meter hull to
something more like a 1.2 meter hull, overall...Lemme ponder the free-
flooding a bit.
Warren.
>
> Warren, putting a solid deck in you sub doesn't change
> the displacement at all. If you where planning to flood
> part of your large pressure-hull that would allow you
> to reduce the dry weight, but why bother building such
> a large hull just to flood half of it...
>
> Ian.
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:06:11 +0800
> "Warrend Greenway" <dub@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > 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