Marc, Carsten,
I am sure the guys who try to sell luxury submarines with a 80million
dollar pricetag still waiting for the first customer to show up are
targeting a wrong (non existent) market.
I think the right way to tackle the matter is going back to the sixties
take the BEN FRANKLIN which was actually more a "free floating habitat"
than a "classic submarine" and add a bit of "self propelled" quality to
it - streamlining the hull, adding a small diesel engine.
This would be a thing that could be a kind of "submerged houseboat" not
too much high tech - just a solid hull - and a basic boat outfit.
I have good reason to insist that we can build such a structure with
331Euro/ton of displacement (which is equvalent to 331 Euro per cubic
meter of living space) this is not far away from average European and
US housing cost.
We have built the hull for Ian at the cost of a car. It is the room
equivalent of a 68 squaremeter apartment, and it is a enjoyable space
from a yacht perspective.
Please check video at:
Submarine Yacht overview and inside
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BehlL9ssHzI>
If you can have a submergeable living space more or less at the cost of
an apartment of the same size - would you be interested?
Wil
concretesubmarine.com <http://concretesubmarine.com>
2010/7/5 Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@archivale.com
<mailto:piolenc@archivale.com>>
Shame on you for wrecking my fantasy!
Seriously, though, there's no reason why a more conventional sub
configuration - one with a saddle casing - could not have a very big
footprint in the harbor, plenty of deck area and even a landing pad
(though the chopper will need to fly off before the yacht
submerges). As for separate accomodations for the invisible crew,
also possible with a greater subdivision of the internal
space...which would also be good structurally.
Big boat with small sub slung on deck works for underwater
sightseeing, but not for escaping bad weather and pirates.
Could we open up a File area for submarine fantasies and sub
superyacht concepts?
Marc
On 7/6/2010 4:01 AM, MerlinSub@t-online.de
<mailto:MerlinSub@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Marc - I have seen many Superyacht-submarines concept the
last 20 years.
One of them was my own concept in the early 90ies about 90 feet
long.
Was shown as eye catcher on the superyacht show in monaco for
teh yard I am working for at that time.
Lot of intresst from : reportsmans. Not one of the rich guys was
intresst in.
"Looks small in the harbour.."
" I need something with sunbathing are, whirlpool and helicopter
landing pad.."
" I like my private area and don't one to see the crewmembers -
except the stewardess"
Some answers from people normally owned megyacht.
Submarine designer should think about this answers before the
get to there drawing boards.
The superyacht-submarine "industry" is still waiting for the one
rich guy building a autonomus submarine.
But this guy with the big pocket is still on dive station.
Most of them are very happy with a big superyacht and a small
submarine as tender.
vbr Carsten
"Marc de Piolenc"<piolenc@archivale.com
<mailto:piolenc@archivale.com>> schrieb:
A lot of derision was recently heaped on a submersible
luxury yacht
concept bruited by an Italian shipyard and reported by CNN. But
something in the article struck me as a challenge to those
"in the
know." A spokesman for the shipyard said that they were
looking for
consultants.
What if one or more of the leading lights of the personal
submarines
networks were tapped to advise these builders? What would
he/they tell
the yacht designers about the concept they have now, and what
modifications would he/they recommend, and why?
Although I am NOT a leading light in the field of personal
submarines, I
have fantasized for decades about a personal submarine large and
comfortable enough for cruising, or even living aboard, and
even done
some calculations and formed some opinions. I would like to try
launching the discussion, which I hope will be fruitful.
Referring to
the CNN report:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/07/01/concept.yacht.designs/index.html?fbid=owi0rlu2C1-
It's fairly clear from the graphics that the outer hull of
this thing is
the pressure hull (portholes visible), not a "soft" external
casing,
which means that ballast provisions must necessarily be
"hard" and
located inside the pressure hull. That, and the sheer size
of the round
wiewports located just aft of amidships tell us that this
beast, as
conceived, is meant only for shallow submergence. The absence of
internal stiffeners and bulkheads in the interior drawings
reinforces
this, and also dictates the use of an inherently stiff,
thick hull
shell, possibly of sandwich construction.
That said, what advantages would the ability to submerge to
a modest
depth give the submarine yacht that might justify the vast
additional
cost of building a huge submersible? The most obvious is the
ability to
sightsee, to view the wonders of the shallows: reefs,
lagoons... But
this could probably be adequately provided by a
glass-bottomed surface
vessel. Handling rough weather is another advantage - one that
absolutely requires the ability to submerge. Equipped with a
snorkel,
the yacht could use the full power of its diesels to make a
rapid
passage through even the roughest weather. Even though,
snorkeling, it
could not submerge below the convection zone of large
surface waves, the
power of its propulsion system, allied with powerful
hydrovanes and an
automatic stabilization system, would iron out most of the
bumps and
allow a fair body like the sub to power through a storm at
over thirty
knots. If the hull shape were optimized to minimize
wave-making near the
surface, it might do better still.
There are disadvantages, of course, besides the greater
expense of
building the beast. Like water ballast, all fuel tankage must be
internal, which makes venting, and protecting the passengers
and crew
against fuel fumes and spills, a major design task. At
snorkel depth
there's no problem because there is a continual influx of
fresh air and
aspiration of interior air into the engines and expulsion
out the
exhaust. With the boat completely buttoned up and on electric
propulsion, the problem gets more complicated.
The big viewports will have to be altered - I don't know of
any outfit
that could mold a one-piece acrylic port that large. The
result would be
mullioned, and might resemble a rose window more than a
porthole.
Best,
Marc
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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
<mailto: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 <http://PSUBS.ORG>
PO Box 53
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
<mailto: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 <http://PSUBS.ORG>
PO Box 53
Weare, NH 03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2932 - Release Date:
06/12/10 02:35:00
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
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
<mailto: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 <http://PSUBS.ORG>
PO Box 53
Weare, NH 03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2932 - Release Date: 06/12/10 02:35:00