Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub

[bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca>]

i think that if the hull weight more you need less additional weight!
and why the k-600 is going to be less stable than the k-350 if the weight
is at the right place?
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan H. <JMachine@adelphia.net>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub


> Another thing to keep in mind is, as you beef up the sub, your adding
weight
> to it.  You can only add so much steel and still have a sub.  Beyond that,
> you got an anchor!
>
> The K-350 needs about 500 pounds additional weight placed in the hull to
> dive.  The way a K-350 is designed, keeping the batteries and weights low
on
> the sub, it's stable.  If you add steel to the hull over all, you have to
> lesson the weights in the bottom of the hull.  The K-600 does this at the
> expense of stability.  You can only go so far doing this though.
>
> On page 17 in the Busby book, Manned Submersibles, explains in greater
> detail .
>
> Dan H.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Roxborough" <irox@ix.netcom.com>
> To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] kitredge sub
>
>
> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:32:36 -0400
> > bruno masse <rodin4@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > another question.
> > > it is about the kitredge sub
> > > my question is: the k-600 have a 3/8" hull thickness and 1/2 thick end
> cap
> > > and can go to 600' feets.
> > > a hull with 1/2 thickness and a end cap with 5/8 to 3/4 thickness can
go
> about
> > > 1000' feets! i my wrong?
> > > somebody can help me with this question please!
> > > thank you
> >
> > In your hull with 1/2 thickness that goes to 1000feet,
> > they are two thinks which you would have to take
> > into account when comparing dive depths.  Hull diameter
> > will play a big part in making these calculations.
> > Safety Margin is the other big factor when operational
> > depths are being placed on hulls.  Of course they are some
> > other biggies as well, like material, what are the hulls
> > made of?  framing? hull length?  hull length between
> > heavy framing? how round is the cylinder?
> >
> > Assuming that material, diameter, framing, etc. are the
> > same for the both hulls:
> > The K600 can go a lot deeper than 600feet, I would guess
> > that the theoretical crush depth of such a sub would be
> > in the range of 2 or 3x the operational depth.  Can the 1/2 inch
> > thick hull go to 3000feet?  Or is a 1000feet it's theoretical
> > limit/clush depth for this hull.
> >
> > I remember reading/hearing about a K250 that was tested
> > to distruction in a pressure tank.  If I remember correctly,
> > only the dome on the top failed, at around 3 times the
> > operational depth ~700feet (please, somebody correct me if
> > I'm wrong).
> >
> > The short version of this is:
> > The K-class subs are serious over engineered (and I think
> > this is very good thing).
> >
> > Ian.
> >
>
>
>