Brent,
Instead of “guessing” all of the time, please do some real research. Neophyte PSUBers often take as gospel any information that is found here on the PSUB list and can lead to misconceptions on their part in the future…some of which may be dangerous if not down right deadly. You will note that many of us refrain from making replies here unless we have some expert knowledge to bring. A number of us have to waste a good deal of time better spent on other endeavors dispelling misinformation that is either represented as fact or not clearly labeled speculation by a non-engineer or scientist.
I did not respond to this particular request by Joe as I do not know why the Russians have used this configuration but I can tell you it is not because the water is not disturbed yet and vortex shedding is not an issue here. Both issues are related to speed here and speed is not one of Mir’s fine points. You can not tell whether it is a Kort nozzle, a Rice nozzle, or simply an entanglement guard without viewing the cross section of the nozzle or someone more closely associated with the Mir submersibles making a response. Due to the small size of most all submersibles, there is little reserve buoyancy that can be effectively designed in…all of them have handling issues on the surface. While a lot can be learned from images and visiting various submersibles, hard calculations along with weight and trim spreadsheets are necessary prerequisites for a successful submersible with a long, safe lifespan. How do you know you are not looking at a given submersible’s weak point or a poor design?
I can tell you from an early proposal for building the Mir subs that they are size constrained for carrying in aircraft holds and the fins on top are probably a means for shortening the overall length due to deck housing issues (this is a factor in a number of submersible designs)…but it is pure speculation on my part.
A dunce can appear brilliant if he holds his tongue.
Jay K. Jeffries
Andros Is., Bahamas
A skimmer afloat is but a submarine, so poorly built it will not plunge…
How about a non educated guess. ; )'
Thanks for the link to the pic Joe. I would "GUESS" that the aft plane is controlled my the pilot directly or by hydraulics or the like. The swept-back feature is for coolness factor Joe. Na for that I would say it helps if you lightly hit some thing you'll just bounce off and keep going instead of braking the aft plane, but more importantly I would say its for reducing entanglement issues. That is why I like to have surfaces on my sub rounded over and swept back to some degree, with no item protruding forward like the weapons systems on the Star Wars X-wing fighter.
On another note since the aft plane is acting like a planes elevator, having the said aft plane up and out of the way of the swirling water coming off the subs hull, gives the pilot more control then if its down and directly behind the sub. This is why allot of ships are now using forward facing props, that pull instead of push. This is more efficient since the water hasn't be really disturbed yet and you can get a better directional bit into it.
I would say that the whole stabilizer assembly also really helps to deal with vortex shedding. But for that I would use a larger assembly.
I like the Kort nozzle on the sub, or is that a Rice nozzle? From what I understand the Rice nozzle is more efficient.
I wish they would add some soft saddle tanks to the Muir subs, to give them more freeboard staybility. Allot of people get really sick in them when at the surface. Watching the Zodiac cowboys try to attach the crane cables to the subs in rough water is one of the reasons I started designing trimaran subs. I know that adding tanks to the subs gives them more hydo drag, but that is another one of these trade-offs we have been talking about.
> From: joeperkel@hotmail.com
> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] MIR aft planes
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:15:46 +0000
>
>
> Can someone please explain to me the precise function and mechanics of the
> aft planes / stabilizer on the MIR submersibles?
>
> In this image, you can see it rotated at an exaggerated angle, which makes
> me wonder if this was done mechanically by the pilot from within, or the
> unit is "free pivoting" for some reason which escapes me.
>
> http://www7430.nrlssc.navy.mil/7432/hydrates/images/Muir_1.jpg
>
> Why then I also wonder, the extreme sweep-back of these planes? You see this
> in aircraft for aerodynamic purposes in the transonic flight envelope
> (airliners) but, why here? This is repeated in both MIR's as well as the
> proposed Alvin replacement.
>
> Any info is most appreciated, even an educated guess.
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> 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 53
> Weare, NH 03281
> 603-529-1100
> ************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> ************************************************************************
>