Slashdot Mirror
Personal Submarine Cruises SF Bay
LandSonar writes "Graham Hawkes, the guru of the submarine design business, tried out his new submersible sea plane yesterday in SF Bay. Called the 'Deep Flight Aviator'. Article and cool pictures. This craft doesn't use ballast like traditional subs. Flys more like a plane. 'It looks like something NASA might build or the Blue Angels might fly.'"
So, if it's homemade, any chance of getting the plans or trying to figure it
out? I've got a friend who can mold carbon fiber, I wouldn't mind taking a
crack at building one or even a lesser version. How cool would it be to have
one of these?
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
If the submarine doesn't use ballast to maintain its depth, it must always be in motion to stay at a depth away from equilibrium. Assuming it is positively bouyant (it floats) the motion of the water over its dive planes would be the only force holding it underwater. This seems a bit limited to me, since you'd never be able to stop and enjoy the view underwater. It's probably because I'd be more interested in the stuff sitting on the bottom of the ocean, rather than the things moving through it, which appears to be the point of the sub.
----
Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
Oh, you mean like the same people who do it now? What about me, average joe six-pack? When can I go dive down that there Marianas Trench? I want to see the Giant Squid in it's native environment and stop the Discovery Channel from doing anymore of those specials where they don't find the damn thing...again!. Is this deep sea diving for the masses, or just an upgrade for those who already do it?
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
The article makes a nice mention how 75% of the earth is covered in water. Looks like the ocean is one of the last [easy] frontiers, though will the moon be more practicle? This thing looks like the ship in Star War Episode 1.
Back on topic, I would wonder how deep this version can go. It mentions the depth of a squid of around 1500 feet. The article also reports a second version that will be able to comb the bottom of the ocean. I imagine that will look more like a 747.
What was the name of that bad star-trek like show that was set in the ocean?
--------
Free your mind.
Kickstart
According to thei creator's website, they are planning on creating Deep Flight II, which they hope to pilot to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, some 38,000 feet down. But wouldn't the intense pressure and high viscosity of the water at that depth make it nearly impossible to operate on the flight principle? I don't know the first thing about high pressure underwater maneuvering, so perhaps someone else can tell me why this will (or won't) work?
For more cool homebuilt submarines, check out the Personal Submersables web page.
One of the createst commics of all time: Tintin!
"The ultimate personal transportation device, 65 meters (213 ft.) in length with 470 square meters (5000 sq. ft.) of interior space on 4 levels. As proposed, the submarine would constitute the single largest private undersea vehicle ever built."
This team at Virginia Tech, (I used to be on it) are the three time world champs for a human powered submarine. Check them out, lots of cool videos, and documentation. www.hps.vt.edu
A couple of issues that don't seem to be addressed in the article:
They must have buoyancy control nearly equal to that of submarines because the amount of energy required using "flight surfaces" to maintain depth would increase hugely as a function of depth. Unlike in true flight, where it doesn't require more energy to maintain an altitude of 2000 feet than 1000, it takes incomparably more energy to maintain a depth of 2000 feet compared to 1000 if you're not using buoyancy control. I'd venture to suggest it's impossible.
Also, in flight a wing uses reduced air pressure above the curved top of the wing surface (Bernoulli's Principle) for most of its lift. Does anyone know if this effect applies in water? Intuitively it seems like it would not.
I hope this guy is paying royalties to Tintin's friend : Professor Tournesol. He was definitely first
DZM
About a month ago I was in a SF Bay area marina, checking my 5o5 was still on the trailer after a storm. When I saw two guys wheeling out two J shaped funnels. Turned out these were the crew compartment and they were off to be pressure tested in Texas, Houston I think. I knew what deep flight was but these were meant to be more civilised.
Personally I still prefer the original Deep Flight.
On a side note the bernoulli effect isn't much in use. It's more the angle of attack of the wings. Think diving planes not wings.
can't fly. You even see them refered to as "flightless" birds in the text books.
The fact is that they don't fly * in air.*
Watch a penguin "in flight" and this idea is just as obvious as flying machines in air are from watching a hawk soar. I'm only surprised that it's taken this long for someone to actually go ahead and build one.
Nor is the concept unique to the water. There was an experimental plane some decades ago that was a zeppelin shaped like a flying wing. It was heavier than air, but only by a matter of pounds and flew by the lift produced by its wing shape, but was nonetheless dirigable.
I can find no reference to this plane on the web (surprise, not everything is recorded on the web, go figure) but New Yorker magazine once did a piece on it.
The basic principles of buoyancy and lift apply to any fluid medium. All the rest is just commentary and you can find "planes," "zeppelins," "blimps," and even "helicopters" in the natural underwater world as inspiration. Just as you can in air.
KFG