Re: HP, weight and visability

["Sean Walinga" <swalinga@telusplanet.net>]

>I haven't heard of anyone else using or designing a double hulled sub.
>I can't think of a good reason to have a double hull.  Ballast tanks are a lot
>easier to engineer, construct, and maintain, separate from the main hull.
>Then you have balance to consider and with a full second hull, it would have
>to be sectioned off with each section having separate valving, etc.  Also, the
>size of the ballast tank is the size of the whole sub?   I may be missing
>something but it seems like a lot of contraption to build and seal compared to
>two tanks as on the Kittridge.
>But then, all I've done is draw one on paper.....  but boy, does it LOOK
>great!!
>Gene
Hi Gene,
The thought pattern I was following was this "second" hull only encompasing the main cylindrical portion of the hull. The fore and aft hemispheres (or cones) would be single hull. It wouldn't be as hard as it seems to design this type of ballast tank. Using Ray's idea of a removeable outer hull, you could use quarter sections that would do nicely for the ballast need. Increased valving is an issue but doesn't discount the possibility of dual hull. 
It would be nice to see those pictures. There is a program called Rhino3D that is in beta state. It is great for drawing the model before bringing it to blueprint stage. It may help you save on eraser as well...  :)

ttfn
Sean