pl_09

Nice to have a true expert submariner on board . However, I think what Dave's point of argument is that IF the bow plane has the SAME surface area as the stern plane, it will function even better than the stern plane .

AQUASUB

A diving plane, also known as a hydroplane, is a control surface found on submarines which allow the vessel to pitch its bow and stern up or down to assist in the process of submerging or surfacing the boat, as well as controlling depth when submerged.

Diving planes function in much the same way as an aircraft's elevator.

Diving planes are usually fitted in pairs, the bow planes at the front of the submarine and the stern planes at the rear.

Diving planes located on the sail (conning tower) are called fairwater planes on US Navy submarines. Fairwater planes do not pitch the ship up or down, they cause the ship to rise or sink on a level plane as they are operated. Newer ships, starting with the third-flight Los Angeles class subs (or 688i's) have eliminated the sail planes, and operate instead with bow planes.


I guess these guys are wrong and the bow plains on the Vergina class relocated from the sail was a wast of our tax money.

What I obviusly mean by what plain gets the oncoming flow first is the bow planes right or are we moving backwards, mine move forward dahh.

As for small subs the best I ever had and still do runn that out perform in tight areas like canyons is the Graupner Shark ,look at the bow plains there big ,the aft do not operate they are fixed,this sub operates like no other ,the hull tear drop and the rudder not to big or small.

Lets get this taight I did not say that subs run better with only bow plains ,they work best with both plains as is usual ,but if I had a choice of which to use I would go with the bow plains in an emergency i can rise the sub much faster even without blowing ballast and full power.With stern only plains it takes alot longer to do the same.

Now I can respect what the other Captains are saying from there experiance over the years ,but if one wants a small sub like the one in question to operate with the best scale ness and ease than forward and aft plains are recomended as I said before ,there is no confution no bull don't miss qoute me on that and yes as stated in those little links i post ,gee do you guys even bother to read them its pretty clear the Navy moved them from the sail to the bow for a good reason ,better control ,not a waist of our money don't you think.

Dave

AQUASUB

Where I got the false info I guess we need to sick a submariner on them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_plane


Dave

AQUASUB

Pl09 your getting the idea have you noticed on that drop dead gorgeuse Typhoon,the full size mother how much bigger the bow plains are than the sterns?Why because there more effective in changing that huge hulls direction that by its self is a huge control serface as noted above.

Get your sub trimed right and with forward and aft plains she will do just fine. 

Dave

AQUASUB

Guys I realy enjoy spreading false info on RC Subs,I get off watching newbies get frustrated and waist there money on stuff that does not work to well and hey I got millions to spend on new stuff that does not iether I got plenty of time and good health to spare ,so take it with a grain of salt as a old salt to another what realy works in the real underwater world of RC Subs,its an expensive hobby but there are alot of much more expensive ones out there that are not nearly as satisfyieng to me and those who see my ladies run with grace and scaleness or flat out scream like a Shark on a kill runn.

There is old school ,new school and no school in this hobby as is in most,so do as you like its up to you ,you are the Captain,the desighner,the builder and the crew all in one and they all must work together to make that machine work as desired not as what it might be ,but what its true potential is acheived by you.


Dave

AQUASUB

Also notice that on the Typhoon the stern plains are mounted aft of the props so that full thrust of the props asist in adding more force to the plains at angle,a more dirrect and effective aproach than with just stern plains mounted ahead of the props ,those Russians build fantastic subs and got it right on the Typhoon,that is what I did on the SB-2 ,the rudder is just aft of the prop along with a Kort Knozzle made a huge difference!


Dave

 

Skip Asay

"I think what Dave's point of argument is that IF the bow plane has the SAME surface area as the stern plane, it will function even better than the stern plane."

This is exactly what scares me about this guy. PL_09 WANTS to believe this guy so much that he's disregarding what other obviously more knowledgeable people are saying.

So many people equate "prolific poster" with "expert" or "someone who knows what's going on". The truth of the matter is completely different, however. The ONLY way that bow planes could ever be as efficient as stern planes is if the bow planes are absolutely huge and the stern planes so small as to be almost non existent. Bear in mind this entirely misleading nonsense is coming from someone who believes that "pointy bows" are much more efficient than rounded bows underwater and that the only reason all subs have rounded bows is because the power output of a nuke is so high that there's enough to waste. And how EVERY MOTOR should be water cooled for higher efficiency. And seals are not needed on shafts.....just pack them with grease. And I could go on but I think you see my point. At least I certainly hope so.

"have you noticed on that drop dead gorgeuse Typhoon,the full size mother how much bigger the bow plains are than the sterns?Why because there more effective in changing that huge hulls direction that by its self is a huge control serface as noted above."

The reality is that with the stern planes being mounted abaft the screws the thrust acts directly on the control surface with the result being a "force multiplier". And add to that the fact that since stern planes are so much more efficient than bow planes, they don't have to be as large.

Come on, dave. Give it up. There's just no way you could ever win this argument since what you're saying just flat out isn't true. While you may mislead a couple of people the rest of them are just rolling on the floor with laughter.

Skip Asay

AQUASUB

Read what the old school guy is saying now,since he can't come up with any proof or even a link that we can make a refrence to other than his own hearsay,he is up to it again saddly.If we all did what he says we would still be in the era of the model "T".

Qoute:The reality is that with the stern planes being mounted abaft the screws the thrust acts directly on the control surface with the result being a "force multiplier". And add to that the fact that since stern planes are so much more efficient than bow planes, they don't have to be as large.end qoute.

The above proves my point about him and dive plains,"notice force mutiplier",gee why because its needed,why not put force multyplier on the bow plains,why not needed there size and LOCATION does the job just fine.
The guy figured it out all by himself,I guess I am getting it threw.

Now for bows and there shapes the more effecient pointed bow is more efetient in "fuel cunsumption than the rounded bow "like the Typhoons agreed or not ,just run your hand flat against the water then at a right angle,even a child can feel the resistance ,please Skip give us a break and try to debunk that obviuse law of hydrodynamics.That is all I wanted to convey in the other web site and all you could do is miss qoute and try your best to debunck a very well known fact,man i wonder where you get your stuff from,in space it would work fine.

Again about water cooling he just won't give it up,no proof no hard data not even a best gues what temps are!.Oh when it comes out of the water and I open up the sub by then the lump of metal he calls a motor is warm ,warm is a very braud temp range sir be specific.

Water cooling is done at great expence as our esteamed submariners know on submarine propultion systems and I would like to see some debuncking there,run a nuke sub without it and you have a china sydrome!
So I do it becuase one I can 2 its cheaper than replacing a motor 3 it works 4 its very cool looking ,I like that pun to,and hey its just cool.

Skippy I don't see why you think I am trying to winn any arguments you have started i simply are demonstrating some RC sub facts,if you feel that there is aneed to winn anything go play the loto you might have better luck!

Please note he started with the personal attacks and will probably make the moderator lock the thread so I will not do the same ,like a fair guy that I am its not worth my time to argue with the old school guy.

Dave Amur Sub Yard

AQUASUB

I find it interesting that he can't even agree to agree and make a positive cunstructive discution .[]

Dave

SubICman

Skip,

It is true, I am ROFLMAO. The bow planes on a typhoon are also so much larger because they have the room to do it.2 Pressure hulls and an outer soft casing will do that for you. However, because the boat is SOOOOOOO huge, the bow planes probably have the same characteristics as the US boats planes despite being larger in size to their american counterparts. True, The Sterns are more responsive aft of the screw, this has been proven many times over the years even as far back asall of the first U.S. submarines from Holland on to Nuclear power. Most noteably would be the Type XXI, The Type VII, The Type IX, The Type XXIII, All russian copies of the Type XXI Design, Phase one of Albacore, and a wholehost of other boats too numerous to name.
According to U.S.S. Albacore "Forerunner of the Future" by Largess and Mandelbatt, "The PhaseI stern would provide perfect, even too much, control and an outstanding "Dogfighting " maneuverability at the cost of some drag" (Pg. 37) This issue is that the mounting need to be able tohold up against massive bending and twisiting forces while maneuvering. on Pg. 39 the Authors go onto state that the bow planes "were noisy, bulky, and largelyunnecessary since Albacore operatedmostly below periscope depth, where these plane would provide precise depth control. They were eventually removed."

Dave,

We didn't waste taxpayer dollars. The REAL engineers know that the bow planes are for precise depth control at shallow depths and low speeds, so they stay. The size is so small (9' x 9' 0r roughly 36 square feet of surface between upper and lower surfaces) that their effectivenesson ship's angle is negligable. If we have a jam bow planes casualty, we easily compensate for it withthe sterns, no dramatic backing down, no emergency blowing the fwd group. They could make them bigger, but there is no room with the vertical launch tubes, hp air flasks, and otherequipment already taking valuable volume out of the fwd ballast tanks. Would they work just as effectively as the sterns if bigger, probably, but it is not very practical. Remeber also, the biggest and most effective plane surface on a submarine is the hull. Ships angle is key, and the sterns control that.

r/
Tim

SubICman

Dave,

Nuclear subs run water cooling for the REACTOR, not the main engines, it is used to cool the secondary propulsion system (steam side) back into condensate. Not the mains it self. The Condensate cools the primary loop in the RC through heat transfer and steam generation. The reactor is the Heat source not the mains, There is waste heat from the mains, but it is not worth too much to bother with. In our boats the motors give off heat as wasted energy potential. But if you are not over powering you boat with huge motors and monster batteries, you should not need a cooling system. The waste heat should be negligable.

Anyway to each their own. I just have been doing this thing for 20 years for real and the last 2 in RC.WhatI find works for me may not be what works for you, or may even not agree with Skip's views.The key thing is that before you put out info, you should really research it, or be the subject matter expert on it. I am a subject matter expert on real boats, andI am still learning the RC world, although I am an Electronics technician and understand motors and power generation very well. I will say thatI am an SME on them, but notin the RC submarine applications.

r/
Tim

SubICman

Dave,

   I would like to also point out that it is referenced in the book I mentioned above on the same page (page 37), that "Albacore's Pase I stern, a conservative approach in that it places the moveable control surface behind the screw, where the thrust from the screw's wake multiplies the force acting on the surfaces."  They also state further in the paragraph, "DTMB (David Taylor Model basin) urged that placing the control surfaces forward of the Albacore's screw would be hydrodynamically cleaner, but with the fear of some loss of control when backing down." 

  This is True, it is harder to control a subamarine in this configuration while backing down, and it is a true test of skill for the entire control party while conducting this type of manuever. 

r/
Tim

ADDINGTON

So, for civilian enthusiasts like me,is the takeaway from all of this that you must have stern planes to control a sub, but bow planes are an option/luxury?
When did this become a mystery?

Rogue Sub

There is no mystery here. Although it does make for good entertainment for the guys at work! As Tim said roflmao

Skip Asay

"So, for civilian enthusiasts like me,is the takeaway from all of this that you must have stern planes to control a sub, but bow planes are an option/luxury?"

In a word, yes.

"When did this become a mystery?"

It's never really been a mystery at all. A quick question - has anybody ever noticed that no ship has its rudder in the front? Or even a secondary rudder?

Skip Asay

SubICman

Skip,

Not to prove you wrong or start anything with you,But I must point out that Albacore in two of her configurations had a dorsal rudder in addition to her main appendages. But that it was not very effective at anything because it caused too much turbulence. They were trying it to counter the heeling effect of a rudder order at speed.

R/
Tim

Rogue Sub

I think the point was more along the lines of

Would you throw a dart tail first?

Skip Asay

"Not to prove you wrong or start anything with you, But I must point out that Albacore in two of her configurations had a dorsal rudder in addition to her main appendages. But that it was not very effective at anything because it caused too much turbulence."

No problem.

To the best of my knowledge, Albacore was the only boat that ever tried this. But the bottom line is that dorsal rudders have not been installed on any other boat (that I'm aware of) so that says something all by itself. But one has to keep in mind the true reason for Albacore's existence. She was a research boat. Period. It was determined early on that she would not be armed in any way since, principally, the designers were afraid that the Navy might take her over in the event of a crisis. Also, Albacore was the first full size submarine that featured a 'body of revolution' hull so everybody involved with her design sorta had their fingers crossed. It probably ranks as one of if not THE most modified submarines around (except for maybe my Type XXIII!).

Skip Asay

pl_09

In my humble two cents, I think quoting actual submarine designs to predict the behaviour of a RC sub with litmited movable controls is not 100% sound. Real life engineering sometime does not follow the most efficient way, but to sacrifice the best features for one sole purpose, like the stealth fighters or even the SUVs. The stealth fighter has to make huge sacrifice on aerodynamics, and the SUV has to sacrifice its stability with contant roll-overs ( until Mercendes improve it somewhat using computer).
True submarine has the luxuries of having controllable bow & stern planes as well as multiple ballast tanks to trim the dive angles ! Sacrificing a little of the best hydrodynamics is trivial if it can reduce noise to achieve stealth. For hobby sub which has choice of either bow or stern dive plane and single or tiny or no ballast tank, it might mean a non-diving sub if not chosen wisely.
I think the whole discussion can be simplied into our bicycle riding experience as follows:
The best & safest way to brake a fast bicycle is to apply both front & back brakes ( bow & stern planes like real sub). If you have choice of only one brake, you would use the back brake so to stop it safely with hardly any fish-tailing. If you choose only the front brake ( bow plane) to stop it, you will fish-tail sometimes out of control. As a smart RC submarine hobbyist, you might use it as an advantage to exaggerate a turn using this fish-tailing. As I have pointed out before, both Skip & Dave are right. It depends on whether you want precise steering or faster swing turn with possible over-correction.

Skip Asay

"It depends on whether you want precise steering or faster swing turn with possible over-correction."

This needs clarification. Which is which?

This needs to be repeated - "PL_09 WANTS to believe this guy so much that he's disregarding what other obviously more knowledgeable people are saying."

"As I have pointed out before, both Skip & Dave are right."

And this statement hurts me severely. The only thing we have in common is that we build submarines. Not to mention that what he is saying is blatantly false.

Skip Asay

AQUASUB

Very well said pl-09 you have nailed it better than the above experts could trying there damdest to point out that the Albacore with all of its phases and advances and terrible shortcomings in failed engeneering just proved that a well thaught out Nuke is todays Virginia clas and some of the Russian subs still to this day have retractablebow plains and will have into the far future ,even going so far as to relocate them on the 688 clas,I wonder how much that cost us.
I am no expert and do not want to be one as the saying goes "an expert knows alot about nothing",I just have experiance in RC Subs.
For a newbie I would be honored to sail with you and keep up the good work,now Skip is going to say something or the submariners with only how many years in RC Subs 2 wow what experiance ,I have over 25 now and have sold many all over the world,say do you know how much it is to send a Robbe U-31 toSpain 750.00$ ouch man the buyer realy wanted that baby,I modified it to static dive,water cooled drill motor and planetary gear drive a 5.5 inch7 bladed monster of a prop,she waied in at 35 lbs had 2ea 8 ampH SLBshydraulic leveling and man I tell you I am going to miss that sub she was sweet so aesy to dive and super manueverable and ran for 2 and half hours!The mods cost less than the stock brushless motor recomended by Robbe.I sailed her for several years with little repairs.My only regret was not having made the sail plains operable ,eventhough she was so well ballanced she would hold at PD but with much more consentration since I do not use an electronic leveler,I like to actualy drive it ,not have assistance of any kind its funner that way to me.

I love this one Skip wrote above: The bow planes on a typhoon are also so much larger because they have the room to do it.

No there that way because they "had to be more effective" and had to be made very large in comparisson to other subs and due to the extra wide hull crossection .For rapid as possible changes in depth as one would want while under the ice this sub has to be able to dive and recover rapidly along with blowing the forward groups if needed.If not why make them that large,maybe to scare the US Navy away ,right.

I like being entertaining if not this would be very dull speck and number stuff that no one would follow .

Of course the water in a Nuke is for the reactor I have seen those diagrams as well,still its for cooling and not the icecream machine.No mater what size or type of lumpy thing that makes ratational torqe for a propellor to move the vessel is used it will make HEAT,not ice not hopefully it will stay cool but get warmer and warmer and warmer,why because its in a "sealed" container or dare I say WTC ,the poor thing has no way to disapate its heat,allbeit not much but its there and in my opinion it should be removed ,especialy since hot or warm air expands quite a bit putting unecessary pressure on allready week or inaffective seals on the plastic casings,why risk it,keep the pressures safe inside and cooling helps more than one realizes.
The counter argument is that I use motors that are too hot or gear boxes that use too much power,if that where the case than ,one prove it with telemitry as I have donewhich is the scientific method not hearsay.No 2 in my subs it is not necessary to water cool them but I do for the above reasons ,I use comon can motors that are very effecient and strong,I hardly ever max them out to full but if neede I have no worries of damage and that includes the ESCand have not changed one since I can remember on 7 plus subs.Its just good sence and an insurance pollicy built into the sub that realy pays off.Personaly I do not care if anyone does this to there subs but its just good sence to share it with fellow Captains to keep there motors and subs happy.


Dave

Also on breaks 60 % of breaking power or effectiveness is in where? The front breaks ,so if you want to stop in a hurry both front and rear must be used without skidding.If the rear are the only ones functioning the stopping distance is greatly increased.Same analogy is with for and aft plains but with verticle control responsiveness.That is what I am pointing out "responsiveness" of the sub and "location and size have all to do with it".

PS I told you Skippy would come out with not even being able to agree with agreeing and I love false information sounds just like a political race wow "it hurts me severly"
I feel for ya man!

Skip Asay

"I love this one Skip wrote above: The bow planes on a typhoon are also so much larger because they have the room to do it."

David - You're so intent on putting me down, it's incredible. But please note that I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE. Someone else did.

Skip Asay

PS - 2 1/2 hours with SIXTEEN AMPS CAPACITY? That's certainly not something I would brag about.

Rogue Sub

True.. I ran my ohio last weekend with a 3.5" prop for 2 hours on a speed 400 with a 4.6:1 and consumed less then 1 amp with no detectable heat.....

How many end caps or of the such have you had pop off due to heat build up inside the WTC?
How many motors have you burnt out prior to the use of the water cooling?
If the bow planes are so valuable why make them contract instead of leaving them out all the time?

It is interesting to me how you will take what qualified submariners tell you and dismiss it as arrogance or false hoods... In honesty we are merely trying to help you see a flaw in your thinking. Sure not all things may apply to a toy in the water as it would the larger version but almost everything else does. I challenge you to make a list of principles that do not directly translate from one to the other that does not have to do with how water molecules do not act the same way when the sub has been scaled down.

I was not trying to get mean with you dave or as I said earlier put you down but when you spit in my face with the nonsense and ignore people who have been through extremely exstensive training for principles as these, it is VERY disheartening to me.


One last question. Just who would you have to hear this information from for you to end the arguement? Perhaps I can arrange it.

SubICman

Kevin,

This guy doesn't want to hear it. And he is throwing 25 years of RC sub modeling at me, versus my two. You know me, You have seen my work. Can mystuff pass muster? I like to think so. I agree with you on the fact that all the principle of the 1:1 size ones apply to our models. I haven't had any overheating problems on my models. Then again i am running Speed 400"s on a three to one reduction, andI limit my throtttle response to 70% throttle, andI get a nice scale speed. I ran at my pond for a good three hours on a 3300 amp hour battery. As far as braking on a car, what that has to do with submarines, Ihave no idea. It's like comparing apples and star fruits, they are not even close in shape or form. AmI trying to brake the submarine? No, I am trying to change angle on a fulcrum, and the stern planes are whatI do that with. ifI want to change vertical velocity,I use depth control systemand bow/fairwater planes. How much did we pay for change the planes? 688 were produced at about 1 billon a copy, do the math with the thousands of parts and systems. It was the next evolution of the submarine and it wasn't a post construction change, it was a design change in the 4th generation of those submarines. It was mostly for noise considerations, and the fact that fairwaters, once the ship was broached due to poor depth control or sea state, were useless.
If Dave likes russian boatsso much, maybe he should move toRussia. He can work on them,with theirin the dirt safety record, poor radcon procedures,and the goverment's clear lack of care for the crews. We could have saved thesurvivng crew on theKursk if they would have acknoledged they went down earlier, and stopped trying to blame it on us, and asked us for our help.Our rescure team could have been on site with the DSRV in 18 hours. They were on standby for days waiting for the word. This isn't worth the energy anymore, I tried. Skip just ignore him,I am going to

R/
Tim

AQUASUB

Wow I just love stirring up the sediment ,lets see ,nuke meckanic is the sub you are refering to above have a beam as large as U-31 of almost 9 inches and as almost 5 ft long or displace that much water? A bit larger than your sub hence a bit more power required to move her ,this sub plows threw the water and has a bow wake of several inches in front of her not just on the sides.Yes I have seen end caps leak from built up pressure thats why I use my Aquacasing,4 lugs cam locked and a shoulder seal ,absolute beutyfull designe a sumariner would love. 
You saw  her she ran great , see video here or on the SCR thats all the proof I need.
Im sorry if I come across as arogant or spitting in your face but that was not what I did for you and your dad in the past at the Den.If you are the same guy ,hard to say in these forums.If not my appologies.

Submariner I am just as proud of this country as you are I also served her in and would love to visit Russia and stand on that Typhoon but thats about it ,I don't have to tell you the US Navy is the best par none on the planet but with the way the country is being run these days I worry that our dominance is getting shorter and shorter and the Russians and Chineese are right on our tails just waiting for a weak spot and bam it could come and will be realy ready,I hope so not to mention Iran ,what a mess.Also I like Russian subs because of the way they look and perform ,thats all I don't see where patriatisim came into the discution, ijole mano.

Well still getting back its all about control of the sub ,size of DP and stern plains and last but not least boyancy if your diving with too much ballast those plains arent going to be very effective so nuetral is best that way maximum effect is rendered.

Naturaly there is that molecular water difference with full size and tiny subs,I never said there wasent and totaly agree or are we doing that Skip thing again.

Im cool with all you guys and we have our differences and thats fine, thank god there is that choice now get a cool one and just chill out its good for ya ,hasta loego muchachos.



Dave