Wow, impressive plans! It sounds a bit like the Ben Franklin,
similar size and depth capability:
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/FRANKLIN/HTML/ben_franklin.html
Paul
On 11/21/05, Charles Perkins <chuck@memetech.com> wrote: Hello all,
My dream submarine would be a larger one (since I'm dreaming it can
be as large as I want, right?) so I have been sketching submarines
between 40 and 65 feet long. I would like this submarine to be able
to dive to greater depths, and to that end I pose to you folks the
following question--
For a submarine with a designed working depth of 1 kilometer and a
33% safety factor (designed crush depth of 1.5 km) and three hull
section diameters (8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet) and a length between
reinforced frames or bulkheads of 11 feet, is there a better way to
build the hull than the following:
Frames one foot apart on center
three inch wide flanges capping each frame
.5 inch thick steel frames 12 inches deep with a .5 inch thick flange
for 8' and 10' diameter sections
.75 inch thick steel frames 18 inches deep with a .75 inch thick
flange for a 14' diameter section
1.25 inch thick shell on 8' section
1.5 inch thick shell on 10' section
1.75 inch thick shell on 14' section
using A517 gr 70 steel (young's modulus 28446000, Poisson's ratio .3,
yield stress 70000)
As you might guess, I have been playing around with spreadsheets in
order to make the details of my drawings more realistic. The above is
what I have come up with so far. I would be interested to know if the
above solution for a deep diving medium-sized submarine bears any
relation to reality...
Or you can just be cheerfully amused at my naiveté. I don't mind.
Thanks,
Chuck