Rick,
The one sketch that I have, I posted to the frappr map site. It is a conceptual sketch only to work out major details of structure, ballast arrangement, control, air systems, ventilation, size scale and machinery. I am still learning Rhino....very...slowly!
General window arrangement is as in the sketch, with flat plate to minimize distortion forward, and fisheye ports P & S, ala Sportsub. A two man boat would be three feet longer with the second crewman facing aft but, still in tandem. A convenient arrangement to save space and maintain some scale in profile.
Above water she will present much like Kraka, long low and thin. The conning tower will be ok scale wise in profile but beam is another story. If you notice, Kraka's con nearly spans the entire deck width, I have encountered the same problems of scale.
In that regard, I may not stay true to any one period design. The S- Boats and several others, have a convenient central placement of the conning tower to make W & B easier to deal with. The L & M series have deck structures that would be easier to duplicate but, an underwater hull bow profile that's a bit much. I may do like Madsen did....a (similar-ca), not true to any one boat. No deck lounging here, I plan to have standing room in the open hatchway. I will be lucky to be able to walk up to the forepeak.
BTW, hull speed is 1.34 x the square root of the waterline for a displacement hull. At 15 feet, you would be tied surfaced speed of 5.1 kts and @ 30 feet 7.34 kts. However, shorter would be much easier to control longitudinally, that is partially why I decided on the miltary control profile and shallow depth. Sportsub has her shape for a reason. My diesel would push plenty of flow over the planes, she may actually be tender in "pitch" and need a friction lock on the mechanism.
I'm working on engine cooling and exhaust today!!
This is a far cry from my initial "irrational exhubrance' eh?
Joe
From: "Rick and Marcia" <empiricus@telus.net>
Reply-To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Curved surfaces and ballast release
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:24:36 -0800
Heh heh, I had a brain fart. Sorry about that.Rheal and Julie and I got together Sunday morning for breakfast. As we were discussing subs and airplanes we mulled over some Typhoon models I had brought along. 24 ft. seems about right for a tandem seating arrangement.My initial LOA for Magical Child was 15 ft. While it's still a workable length in terms of my workshop, it leaves something to be desired with regard to having decks to walk and lounge on. That doesn't even begin to address the, um, aesthetic issue of being able to watch your SUBMARINE decks submerge in front of your very eyes. A little like a martini without the olive. I could, however, live with watching the water splash over the canopy on the way down. That will be caught on video to be sure.What have you figured for windows? Any sketches yet?Rick L----- Original Message -----From: Joseph PerkelSent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:37 AMSubject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Curved surfaces and ballast release************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ 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 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 PO Box 311 Weare, NH 03281 603-529-1100 ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************Rick,
Nautilus was ruled out as impractical some time ago. I am drawing up a 25' x 4' replica of a WW1 (one) design. 25' was the minimum I could aesthetically get away with.
Joe
From: "Rick and Marcia" <empiricus@telus.net>
Reply-To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Curved surfaces and ballast release
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 03:23:49 -0800
Joe, for a pilot you sure are catching on quickly. This isn't exactly your turf, but, so far you've made more sense than some of the stuff I've seen. I get the impression you actually want to solve some problems and not just ramble on about concepts. :-)I hear you, lot's of similarities. I am envisioning the longitudinal supports (minor stringers) only to maintain a fair surface since the framing is in essence, a plug. Still, I would like to not have to do that, but I cant see how to laminate the thin layers without them?But, longitudinal support (major stringers) in addition to the monocoque skin is also length and weight dependent is it not?
OK, now - the longitudinals. If the skin is thick enough they should be self forming around the bulheads. I'll be using so many of them that the skins really will have no place to go than around the edges. Very thin sheets would require skantling for sure.Any ambient ply design is going to need a "boatload" of lead. You and I need to be careful about structural integrity with regard to the concentrated ballast (and it's going to be a lot!). I don't think I could get away with purely monocoque at my length and be comfortable in any kind of wave action.I'll be keeping my lead right under my seat. I'm visualising the cockpit/lead setup as a balloon/weight analog. The heavier built cockpit will take the stresses entirely.As you so aptly pointed out, in a seaway the changing stresses could lead to difficulties. Magical Child's twin keels (mainly for bottoming) will run from far aft right up forward. Inside the nosecone I'll be using bracing in the form of ply sheet to take hard wave action. I'll be transferring the loads (on the inside of where the external keels meet the hull) adjacent to the twin keels.A 15 footer like MC has a completely different set of stressors than your Nautilus. Same concept, but the load!!!Clear my mind, will you? Are you still envisioning that 35 footer? Or have you actually decided to downsize for the first one?Rick L
----- Original Message -----From: Joseph PerkelSent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:20 PMSubject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Curved surfaces and ballast releaseRick,
'Now, I may be a little more concerned with the cockpit. I'll have to think this one out."
As I work this out on paper I am seeing either a short, squatty and lighter caricature of a military boat, or a longer truer to scale but more heavily constructed version with a tiny crew module and almost all flooded fairings. As they say in Texas, "big hat no cattle"!
Truly a lot of details to consider.
Joe
From: "Rick and Marcia" <empiricus@telus.net>
Reply-To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Curved surfaces and ballast release
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:13:00 -0800
Joseph - it seems we're looking at building the same boat!!!I'm avoiding longitudinals and sticking with a monocoque. I agree with all the transverse frames (bulkheads) being the main support or guides for the epoxied skins. Magical Child (i.e.: Typhoon) will have simple curves (arcs) both port and starboard, deck and bottom. The simple curve in the cold moulds will be sufficient support; IMHO, the longitudinals are extra work. Longitudinal strength comes from the skin.Now, I may be a little more concerned with the cockpit. I'll have to think this one out.Temporary support while the epoxy cures along the bulkhead edging will come from wrap-around straps or even cinched up rope (trucker's tightener). A good 60 grit sanding along the bulhead edging will give some tooth for the epoxy to hold.I'll be using rather thin (1/4 inch) ply for bulkheads - should work as long as they're filleted with epoxy and glass strips. Cockpit bulkeads will be heavier.Rick L----- Original Message -----From: Joseph PerkelSent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 6:14 AMSubject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Curved surfaces and ballast releaseThe recent discussion regarding spherical mock-up construction has me taking another look at something I had in mind.To form the curved surfaces of my ambient marine ply design, I have in mind epoxy laminating thin layers of ply over longitudinal supports notched into traditional transverse frames. I need those frames to baffle a whole lot of free flooding spaces and soft tank spaces anyway, so they have to form the hull exterior. (The crew compartment is modular and hidden from view and structured to contain the lead ballast).As I apply this to my 3d model, I see a lot of material taking up a a lot of displacement volume and therefore requiring additional compensation ballast.Suggestions on how to cut down on the framework volume and still maintain fair curves with rigidity would be greatly appreciated.A second question is regarding mechanisms for release of a heavy lead keel. If someone could point me to examples to look at?Joe