[PSUBS-MAILIST] Shackleton test report

[Cliff Redus via Personal_Submersibles]

Great report Alec.  The deck looks great.  One of your drivers to move to
Hugh Fulton's pancake, large throat vent valve is the enable fast
submergence so that rotating moments don't have time to kick in. Did you
have a timer going to see how fast it took for the MBT's to flood and have
water over the hatch?  Would be nice to see a profile picture of Shackleton
to better see how the modified MBT's came out.  Also a picture of the stern
would be nice so we can see what your are talking about as to aft thruster
performance.

Thanks again for the posting.

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:31 PM Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles <
personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:

> Hi friends,
>
> Today with Mark Ragan and Brian Hughes' help I'm delighted to say we were
> able to sneak a test in just before winter makes its appearance. It was tee
> shirt weather, with high tide at the warmest time of day.
>
> You may not be familiar with Shackleton, so here's a summary. She uses the
> main cylinder of an earlier project called Solo, which was to be a
> hydrobatic sub and therefore had a very slender (i.e. only 31" diameter)
> main hull. Solo lost her wings and tail but gained battery pods, a CT, a
> deck, etc. Shackleton herself has already been through several iterations,
> specifically of the MBTs. In the first iteration I made a big mistake - I
> concentrated my calculations on submerged stability, just assuming the MBTs
> would provide stability when surfaced. Nope! The second iteration used a
> raft MBT, which is far more stable than the streamlined hull-hugging
> initial version. That solved the surfaced stability issue. However, it had
> a new problem. The raft was composed of a bunch of small aluminum tanks,
> plumbed to valves on the CT just like a Kittredge sub. The problem was that
> the plumbing had do cover quite a distance and suffered from water
> blocking. This is the third iteration, and uses a raft of four MBTs but
> with mushroom valves rather than the K boat arrangement. Water blocking
> can't happen because mushroom valves go straight on the tanks and have no
> plumbing at all. I can already say that although it took me a while to
> arrive at, I'm a fan of the raft configuration implemented with mushroom
> valves. BTW the valves are controlled in pairs, so the pilot can open or
> shut the two forward valves or the two aft ones independently.
>
> What worked well:
> - As mentioned, the raft MBT provided good stability.
> - The boat floated at the calculated waterline and in trim.
> - The vertical thrusters blow water through the deck grating. I was
> curious how much efficiency this would cost, but it appears a very
> acceptable compromise.
> - The four thrusters are jettisonable. They are held against the hull by a
> bolt, and they seat against electrical connectors that are insulated from
> the water by an O ring. I have a short-detection circuit to make sure those
> O rings aren't leaking. I used it, and found no leaks. Thruster controls
> worked great.
> - The boat uses a combination of trawl floats and steel ballast to adjust
> buoyancy, with no VBT. Today's test was with just one person aboard, and in
> salt water. In other words, the scenario that calls for max ballast. We
> turned out to be balanced with a tad less than the full complement of
> weights - the theoretical numbers turned out near perfect.
> - I love the fast submergence!
>
> Needs work:
> - The thrusters are fine going forward but quite miserable in reverse. I
> think this is due to a combination of two factors. First, in reverse the
> prop wash hits the MBTs - I can't really do anything about that. Second,
> I'm using after market props that are supposedly faster than the stock
> Minnkotas. But I think they accomplish that by being biased for forward
> motion. I'll be switching back to the stock props.
> - Two of the mushroom valves don't seal 100%. I'll be putting in slightly
> thicker O rings to see if that stops it.
> - The hatch leaked, even though it didn't on past tests and didn't when I
> tested water-tightness with a vacuum two days ago. The hatch is bolted to
> its hinge, and washers on those bolts adjust the fit. This is just
> something to tinker with, but I know it can seal successfully.
> Unfortunately I have to remove the hatch each time the sub goes in and out,
> to fit under the garage door opening.
>
> And now... let winter move in! The next step will be a nice spring day
> dialing in ballast configurations for one or two occupants.
>
> Thanks,
> Alec
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181204/ab291276/attachment.html>