Re: Typhoon

[shawl@torchlake.com (Jonathan Shawl)]

Michael B Holt wrote:

> >The beauty of the Typhoon is that the deck and bilges are straight
> >panels; no twisting, torturing,
> >cold molding, steam bending, etc.
> > The stern is a wedge shape: very simple.  No cones.  The only
> >challenge - albeit a minor one - is
> > developing the bow bulb.  But, even that is very straightforward if
> >you use ply molds as formers
> > to get the arch shape.  A cylindrical hull requires a paraboloid
> >bow, not a simple arch.
>
> I'm looking at the Revell model of the Typhoon (it sits over my
> computer). There's nothing at all complex about it, as you say.   Only the
> bow would
> be an irritation, but not a challenge.
>
> Stick with the Russians.   Their ideas were, it seems, intended to be
> easy to build.  Most of the ships are curiously uncomplicated.   That
> broad and heavy sail, however, owes more to high-speed requirements
> than it does to anything else; in this respect, we'd be well-served to
> skip the sail altogether, or use the British WW2 shapes.

Maybe you guys already know this, but here it is anyway. What you see on the
outside is just the skin, not the pressure hull. It is not a simple sub. I
once saw a line
drawings in a magazine like maybe Pop Sci. or Mech. Illustrated, showing
that it may actually have 2 main pressure hulls side by side with a 3rd
smaller round hull nested between them on top, just under the con. That would

explain it's non conventional shape and it's deep depth rating for a sub
that size. It's more like a 2 in 1 sub. From the info I saw on the web, the
reason it has a stout sail it so it can hold up to ice breaking service. More
evidence of it being a complex sub is that all the small stuff on the con.
tower is retractable.
If you are just building a display model or a wet sub, then yes it is a
simple to build shape. Has anyone ever found any other info to support or
show this twin hull idea?

Jon Shawl