[PSUBS-MAILIST] K-600

[vbra676539 at aol.com]

 He told me the same thing about the 600. Too deep. I'm not surprised by the safety factor. Some Annapolis buddy of George's was a chief design guy for Navy subs and went over all the original calcs.
Vance


-----Original Message-----
From: greg cottrell <jgcottrell2002 at yahoo.com>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
Sent: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 11:34 am
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-600





Vance,
 
The answer is that George did not assign depths to his own designs as deep as they would really go. 
 
I once did some calcs on the K-250 with Cliff's spreadsheet and was surprised to see that the estimated depth rating was over 500 ft. (I also found that the size and spacing of the frames was surprisingly good). When I mentioned this to George he said "Really? How did that happen?!!" But then went on to tell me that his target safety factor was more than two to one. 
I'm sure that if we run the numbers on the K-600 we will find that it could have been rated to go much deeper.
 
Incidentally, George was not very comfortable selling plans for the 600 because he thought it was just too deep for the average Joe to be messing around with.
 
Greg
 
 
 


From: "vbra676539 at aol.com" <vbra676539 at aol.com>
To: personal_submersibles at psubs.org 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-600



PC-8 has 3/8" wall thickness on the hull cylinder, the same as the 600, but was rated 200 feet deeper by ABS, even though it has a larger radius (21" as opposed to 18"). The ring stiffeners on the 8 are external and the conning tower larger. Makes you wonder what the deal is for figuring operating depth. Perry went to half inch for PS-2 which was the same boat but rated at 1000'. Hmmm.
Vance


-----Original Message-----
From: greg cottrell <jgcottrell2002 at yahoo.com>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
Sent: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-600



I thought that George said they were .625" but I could be wrong.
 




From: Jon Wallace <jon.wallace at yahoo.com>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-600


It was an engineer hired by the company that commissioned and purchased the 600.  His calculation requirements for the heads came out a little bit thicker than what George had calculated.  I believe George spec'd .5 inch and the company's engineer spec'd .5625 inch.

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 10/24/13, greg cottrell <jgcottrell2002 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] K-600
To: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
Date: Thursday, October 24, 2013, 9:25 AM

George attributed the miscalculation in the weight
of the 600 to second guessing the thickness of the heads.
His original design called for thinner heads but
someone (can't remember who) that George respected
suggested that they should be thicker. George used the
thicker heads and then found that the sub wouldn't
float. He had the hull lengthened by Bath Iron Works to get
the needed buoyancy back. He
said he was amazed at how fast they turned the job around- I
think it was only a few days.
 
Greg
 



_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles






_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles



_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles






_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20131024/9062087f/attachment.html>