|
Greetings Joe, My vote is for the giant boxing glove on a spring. ;)' You made a good point about the braking flaps coming out at the same time, and that was what I had suspected was one of the problems with the USS Albacore's accident. It's been suggested to me that if the USS Albacore had the braking flaps positioned further to the rear they would of had better lateral stability. Blackburn Buccaneer fighter braking flaps data. "The small wing of the Buccaneer was suited to high-speed flight at low level. Such a wing, however, did not generate the lift that was essential for low-speed carrier operations. Therefore, the wing and horizontal stabilizer were "blown" by bleeding compressor gas from the engine through surface vents. A consequence of the blown wing was that the engines were required to run at high power for low-speed flight in order to generate sufficient compressor gas for blowing. Blackburn's solution to this situation was to provide a large air brake. The tail cone was formed from two leaves that could be hydraulically opened into the airstream to decelerate the aircraft. The nose cone and radar antennae could also be swung around by 180 degrees to reduce the length of the aircraft in the carrier hangar. This feature was particularly important as contemporary British aircraft carriers were small." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:14_Buccaneer_landing_on_Eagle_Mediterranean_Jan1970.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Buccaneer I very much enjoy the tech brakes for cheese whiz entertainment as well. But it's dangerous ground to tread on. Steve and I used humor as a way to celebrate the announcement of his Loggerhead sub design, and it irritated a grumpy few. But thats the price of cheez whiz. Your resident possibility thinker ;)' Regards, Szybowski From: joeperkel@hotmail.com To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Reverse Thruster Wiring Options Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:42:23 +0000 Brent, The most intuitive control is that of a joystick. In the case of NR-2, the fore and aft X thruster config, would have made for a dandy setup. Minnkota, already has a nice setup for dial speed control, so perhaps left hand for motor speed / direction, right hand for directional control via joystick. What I would have done, and never got around to it, is to see and copy precisely what an Alvin pilot uses. This entire project, would have copied technologies already proven and in place, Frankenstein style. My reason for staying here, (besides cheese-whiz entertainment), is to continue to learn. Joe From: brenthartwig@hotmail.com To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Reverse Thruster Wiring Options Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:51:33 -0700 Hello Joe, It ac cured to me that, if there was two foot brakes that control braking flaps, or an emergency brake lever to operate those flaps, it could be wired in so that when both foot peddles are engaged for deploying the braking flaps, and/or the emergency brake flaps lever is pulled, that it would automatically reverse the thruster props. Along this same idea, one could have no braking flaps on a sub at all, and have one foot brake peddle or lever that when engaged will send all the thruster props into reverse. Your resident possibility thinker ;)' Regards, Szybowski From: joeperkel@hotmail.com To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stopping Flaps Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:06:09 +0000 In all the time that I was contemplating NR-2, this is precisely what I had envisioned. Minnkota has a dial control that I was looking at. Operationally, the first order of business was going to be target acquisition on the Interphase screen by the pilot, with a visual confirmation or "tally ho" by the co-pilot via a forward cam or port. Then the pilot switches to visual navigation, just like flying an approach on instruments. Basically, the whole idea being to avoid the "oops" in the first place. Joe From: ShellyDalg@aol.com Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:27:38 -0400 Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Stopping Flaps To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org I tend to agree with you on that Ian. Better to pump up the motors than devise a whole separate system for slowing the sub. A full reverse using maximum thrust from all your motors would be easier to incorporate, cut down on reaction time, and have the added benefit of being available for a quick burst of thrust in forward as well. My motors (4) have 101 pounds thrust each. In reverse, that's probably a lot less, but still, almost like throwing out an anchor! No separate complicated system, just slam the controls back and hope you have enough room to stop. There again, it doesn't make sense to travel faster than what your sub can handle in a stop mode. Frank D. It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. |