AQUASUB

My Type XXI hydraulic retracts plains nice http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...DSCF0001-2.flv

The lateral retraction is very cool http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...DSCF0001-1.mp4

The only sub I over sized the dive plains is the SB-2 and it is not a scale anything and I would never do it to a scale sub though several could have used it!

Dave

AQUASUB

Also the Albacore had sail plains ,there good but as noted above take up valuble sail space and are subjected to surface turbulance.So yes the sub did do well but still had dive plains and I think that later on it was determined to instal bow plains,they found reality.

Dave

ADDINGTON

Please pardon my intrusion on this lofty discussion summit. I merely wished to offer my humble observations from a unique vantage point underwater at the last five SubCommittee national regattas. Admittedly, what I have witnessed is all I know.
I  have never seen Yahoo or Wikipedia in the water.
I will defer to your expertise with cucumbers.

AQUASUB

Sonarman Ashley Fletcher: "I remember the time we were coming out of the yard and on our first dive, the bow dropped like a rock. I was in Sonar watching the sonar screen in front of me while sitting in my chair. Next thing I knew, the screen was up on the ceiling and we were headed straight down and wound up bouncing off the bottom several times. Fortunately, we were only in a couple of hundred feet of water. Everything was dark and quiet until the Captain gave the order to switch to emergency lighting and "Blow the forward tanks, all back full." We wound up surfacing backwards."

I bet if the Albacore had forward dive plains she would not have experianced this un gainly and very embarasing event not to mention her possible loss!

I rest my case

No intrution "apology accsepted Captian Nemah"as in Star Wars
But you have seen full sized subs in the water as well right?
Sorry I do not build RC Cucumbers

Dave

pl_09

Butane lighter gas system was not chosen based on the following reasons:
1) Very limited number of ballast blows
2) every surfacing cycle makes the butane lighter tank LIGHTER giving more & more positive bouyancy very fast.
3)Need to buy lighters, unless you father owns a cigarette shop
4)Dealing dangerous inflammable gas without licence,breaks the fire hazzard by-laws[X(].
5)Your kid might take the lighter out & burn down your house [:@]
6)Polluting the pond water, your fish come to the dinner table tasting smoked
Did I emphasize enough ?

AQUASUB

Note the very small vertualy inafective bow plians,made that way on perpose to reduce noise and since the primary designe of the sub was for speed they thaught it would be fine to leave them that size,if they built her with larger retractable plains as is done on subs toady she would not have suffered the above missgivings and would have been a much better platform for experimentation.She was very much an experimental submarine that revolutionized sub designe but not completly as they are today.
Later they where completly removed with very bad results,even the hole project was eventualy canceled due to the powerplant constantly failing,something the Russians exceled at in the Alfa,she had speed and endurance along with impecable heigh speed manuevrability and very deep diveing capabilities all of these atributes are also seen on modern nukes today and even the US Navy wanted to perchase the last remaining Alfa to study her hydrodynamics!Wow
The above secound vid is of my 5 ft Alfa .

Dave

AQUASUB

Yes butane lighter not a good idea but the lighter it self as a liquid tank is viable,but i don't like gas systems  for the obviuse reasons 2 are above.

AQUASUB

A simple pump system with a vented tank does the trick even hoverring!

Dave

Skip Asay

David -
Before you go spouting stuff as fact, you really should make sure that what you are saying is ACTUAL FACT.

"Later they where completly removed with very bad results"

The reality is somewhat different - Captain Davis - "We took the bow planes off the Albacore and our control problems went away."

"Also the Albacore had sail plains"

Not even close. Albacore had hull mounted planes ONLY, never sail.

I could debunk everything you've said using COLD, HARD FACT but my time is more valuable than that. My only concern is that you lead some newcomers down the garden (incorrect) path. If your way turns you on, fine. But PLEASE refrain from trying to jam it down everybody's throat.

Since what you've been pushing just flys in the face of reality, I suggest you give it up. Reality takes precedence over fantasy every time. Like I said, give it up. There's no way you'll be able to prove that bow planes are more effective/necessary than stern planes. Period. Let it lay.

Skip Asay

pl_09

what Skip & Dave means is my secrective project [8D]

tsenecal

pl_09,

will you be kitting those?

coast219

coast219

The lighter is only used as a gas reservoir. The gas used in the Japanese Typhoon was Freon 134 . I'm sure there are more environmentally friendly alternatives nowadays. The lighter used is a refillable kind so you only need to buy one.

I forgot to mention, a small snort based system could also be used in such a small set-up.

AQUASUB

Skip your just throwing the usual stuff that you are so acused of in doing to newcomers for far longer than I have been posting anything and thats a while.Stuffing it down everyone is your modis operendi,the difference is that i could care less if anyone does what I do,i just enjoy my subs to bystanders awes

If you would plaese read the educated folks that have the facts about dive plains I have posted  you might be inlighted,dive plians on the bow are the first control serface to affect the oncoming water flow  water ,yes or no,even a new comer can see that why can't you,sub builders would not wast a dime to make them that way if it was not effective,modern subs have them why don't you see that fact.Take them off your sub and get back to us with some expert advise.

Sail plains on the Albacore was a mistake ,I meant the other sub.

Could you show us how many modern subs have iether bow or sail plains,compared to those that do not?

Plo9 your cucumber sub has the right fin area for great manuevering,your getting the idea!Now put a radio in it and drive and your cruiseing!

lets be nice now we might get a bow stuck in the mud.

Dave

AQUASUB

Ah thats how it was done very good ,freon ,I bet propel would be good as well,still a simple pump system is far more preciese and easy to hover with no invioromental or cost essues ,but hay it works for them

dave

Rogue Sub

David
The answer is no. They arent the first to see the oncoming water. They see water at the very same time with the very same speed of flow as the stern planes..always. Think about it the boat is surrounded by water.... Perhaps if you are tracking individual molecules of water over control surfaces of the water the statement holds true bu,t as far as what we are doing it is unimportant.

Also when it comes to scale bow planes/sail planes I have disconnected all of mine. When scaled down they become pretty much useless. Sure any force over time will create an action but I really found it to be quite negligible. You really do only need the stern planes. Now on my dumas akula the bow planes were nice and over sized and made the need for stern planes quite unneccisary

Rogue Sub

Sorry David again I must disagree with you on this one. I am not trying to pick a fight with you or put you down brother but it is a bit off mark. Just take the word of a guy qualified in Submarines.

pl_09

Gas system is a relatively inferior system because #1 & #2 still holds but now you need an uncle in refrigeration business because freon 134 (1,1,1,2 tetra chloro ethane?) is very expensive, and sooner or later it will be banned too because it still harm the ozone layer though not as bad, & it worsens the green house effect & Obama doesn't like it!
And the environmentalist might start picketting at your RC submarine meetings[X(][X(]
The worst of all is that your fresh fish from the pond will arrive semi-frozen

pl_09

'will you be kitting those (cucumbers) ?'

With technical assistance from both Dave & Skip, I might be able to do it in the distant future, but so far it does not run good, it only TASTE good

AQUASUB

I am sorry Nuke mechanic but Ill go with the marine engineers who have desighned and build actual subs and even models they seem to be on the right track now for some time.
Tell me would the sub you are serving on would it go to sea with inactive bow plains,or be as effective in her mission overall?

The water current pressent at the bow area is the first to be used because the sub is moveing in that direction and therefore more preciese and "imediate response is achieved"than if only stern plains where used,the entire lenght of the sub of water flow would have to pass before a control response would take effect.That can be and is a problem with subs that need to run in preciese deepths and not "porpose"with poor control.
Small subs that run to scale not zipping around would benifit greatly from bow plains.Mark Green had to install bow plians on his Albacore for the above reasons see SCR thread. 

Kind of like why are cars trucks excetra have the front wheels do the change in direction and not the rear,its more preciese ,can you imagine how difficult it would be if all cars steared like a boat/sub!Forward control verticle serfaces are more preciese no matter what vessel you are driving.

Yes cars are not the subject but stearing is in this case the verticle

The reason why PLo9 is having truble running his sub is that the sub is, one loseing forward speed as the stern props are cavitating the more the bow sinks .
Secoundly the bow has no operable dive plains so rapid change in attitude angle is not done to dive the sub and then maintain the desired water depth.
He has not finished out his sub in my opinion.Scale has nothing to do with it because we are dealing with the same rules and medium.
The transition from surface to underwater running is very important in that it is done properly for the sub to operate well.

This explians it pretty well

Figure 7 shows how the fore and aft dive planes are used during a dive. At the start of the dive the aft plane is rotated upwards so that the stern of the boat is forced upwards. The fore hydroplanes are rotated downwards thus forcing the bow of the boat down. During the dive the aft hydro planes are moved to the neutral position and the dive angle is controlled with the fore hydroplanes only. Close to the the required depth, the aft planes are rotated down and the fore planes up to level off the boat. At slow speeds the depth of the boat is maintained by the fore planes only.  During the first dive, the water level in the main trim tanks is adjusted to obtain a neutral buoyancy so that the required depth can be maintained with a nearly horizontal position of the hydroplanes.
 
http://www.heiszwolf.com/subs/tech/tech01.html#Static

Dave Amur Sub Yard

Skip Asay

"Kind of like why are cars trucks excetra have the front wheels do the change in direction and not the rear,its more preciese ,can you imagine how difficult it would be if all cars steared like a boat/sub!Forward control verticle serfaces are more preciese no matter what vessel you are driving."

The reason why cars and trucks steer from the front is that ON DRY LAND steering from the front is much more responsive. This does not hold true for vessels in the water, however. Have you ever noticed that ALL rudders are mounted in the rear of any vessel that moves on or under the water? Have you ever seen a submarine that DOES NOT HAVE STERN PLANES? Have you ever noticed that while a great many submarines have "disappearing" bow planes NONE have disappearing stern planes? Or no stern planes at all? Do you think that maybe there's a reason for that?

You're constantly saying "the way the big boys do it" (or words to that effect). Why not in this case?

In a previous post, you suggested that I take the bow planes off and see how my boat performs. Well, if you had been reading my posts, you would have seen where I have done that many times with ABSOLUTELY NO ILL EFFECTS.

We'll have to let pl_09 step in here for verification but, judging from the movie, I would say that only the bow planes are used, not stern planes.

Skip Asay

pl_09

I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS MAKING EVERYBODY CONFUSED WITH EVERYTHING !

1) FIRSTLY THE SUB IS RUNNING QUITE GOOD EVEN IN THE OPEN LAKE ERIE. THE STERN IS HIGH BECAUSE I DID NOT BOTHER TO OPEN IT UP TO TRIM IT AT THE BEACH AS THERE IS NO BENCH TABLE THERE.
2) THE JOKE ON ' NOT RUNNING GOOD BUT TASTING GOOD ' REFERS TO THE CUCUMBER ITSELF.
3) THE TYPHOON SUB HAS CONTROLLABLE BOW PLANES, BUT FIXED STERN PLANE.

Skip Asay

"I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS MAKING EVERYBODY CONFUSED WITH EVERYTHING!"

Judging by what I've been reading, there seems to be only one who is confused.

I'll repeat what I started this thread off with "Hint: submarines control much better underwater with the stern planes operational."

Skip Asay

Rogue Sub

There is a good reason there is a bit of confusion going on here... David is giving very incorrect information and quoting so called engineer who I cannot begin to guess he is getting his information from. Everything David has said about bow planes so far is plain wrong. Ofcourse we dont go to sea with broken bow planes but we try not to go to sea with broken anything! The majority of ships depth control is via the stern planes. They are approx 400% more effective in depth control. If we were to experience a jammed stern dive and tried to compensate using the bow planes we would all be very dead!

Bow planes are used for small depth changes. Such as maintaining a small depth band while at PD.

You asked if we could perform our actual mission without them..you bet

Honestly I am done trying here and am not going to bother pouring more energy into a bottomless void.

I have met and work with the engineers have you?

Oh your wrong about the alfa as well.

Believe what you want but beware what you believe!

SubICman

David,

This is coming from a person who has been qualified in submarines for almost 20 years, and have served on 2 fairwater (sailplane boats) and 1 bow plane Boat. Qualified as diving officer on 2 of those boats, the Bow plane and one Fairwater plane boat. The planes do not see the water first, the flow is simultaneous on all surfaces. The Fairwater planes are good for shallow depth control to about 4o feet, above that they are out of the water and useless, they are also useless at high speed because the hull disrupts the flow under the planes and destroys the lift causing indeterminate results. This is why they went BACK to bow planes. Bow planes are good shallowdepth controlat slow speeds.At high speed, they are not used because they are not big enough to be effective. The are only 9 x 9 feet on a 688 class submarine. The stern planes have a hell of alot more surface area than the bow planes, and will cause largeship anglr changes with a small ordered angle of attack.The hull is the biggest control surface and using the stern planes to change the angle of attack of the hull, and the main propulsion plant is how depth changes are made. Nuke is right, you could never recover a jammed stern planes with the bow or fairwater, the only way to do it is all back emergency and possibly blowing the fwd group. The stern planes are way to effective and have wayyy to much surface area over the fwd planes.Ilike the fwd planes for depth control at PD, anything below PD, I would use stern planes and ships angle to change depth, Rule of thumb for depth changes, less than 100 feet + 5 degrees angle on the SHIP.Anything over 100 feet = 5 degrees + 5 degrees for every 100 feet up to what the CO says he wants useually 15 or 20 degrees of SHIP angle, Torpedo evasion or radical manuevers will call for angles greater than 20 no matter what the depth change. Fwd planes are never touched during these depth changes, except to maybe help arrest the ships vertical velocity occasionally.

R/
Tim