[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Medium-Sized Submarine Hull Geometry

Charles,
I'm working on a similar sized hull myself. At least 45 feet. My theory is not to fool with steel at all above 1". Just too much work, too heavy, not practical... unless you're just designing it for fun. The real future of subs is with composites and non-metallics, which is what I am working on at this time. Once I master the Cad/Cam prog. I use I can get some solid data on disk. My other opinion is not going above 8 feet hull diameter - u compromise strength and u also cannot transport the hull sections easily. As well, to be more hydrodynamically efficient you need as LONG and SLENDER a hull you can come up with. I suppose, if you dont plan on moving around much below the water it doesnt really matter. The other issue is simply payload. The smaller and heavier you are the less payload you're going to be able to carry. No point in making a big boat if you cant fill it full of people, water, food, etc. And safely be able to get back to the surface with broken ballast tanks. 

Just some things to think about... hehe
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Perkins" <chuck@memetech.com> 
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Medium-Sized Submarine Hull Geometry
Yes indeed! But with less drifting and more driving around I would hope...
I would post a picture but: a) I'm not done with it yet, and b) I understand the Moki picture exchange is out of order at the moment.
I am tempted to put up a Plone site for PSUBS images. I enjoy seeing what all of you are up to. It is inspiring.
That is a lot of good information on the Ben Franklin. I was aware of the sub and her voyage and I got some of my inspiration from her but I hadn't seen that much detail about her. Very cool. 

Chuck

On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Paul Kreemer wrote:
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












************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.  Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.

If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.

PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 311
Weare, NH  03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************








************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.  Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.

If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
	removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.

PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 311
Weare, NH  03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************