Advantages/disadvantages re: mounting of diveplanes
Tom Rea
diveplanes on the bow vs on the sail ??
Thanks
Tom
Jens Kristian Haug
Bow: Faster diving, steeper depth-angle.
Sail: More stable at PD.
Jens-Kristian Haug
--
Student Informatics (SigProc), University of Oslo
-- 10 DAYS LEFT -- :-)
<URL: http://www.ifi.uio.no/%7ejensh/>
tim_mcfeely
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of mounting submarine
> diveplanes on the bow vs on the sail ??
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
>>>>
submarine. This very much limits their effect on the vertical vectors. In other words,
sail planes don’t do shit except at slow speeds. One of the major changes to the 719-724
and the 751+ was the installation of the VLS tubes in the forward ballast tanks. 688 class
vessels were already at the limit of recoverability, before VLS. With the addition of VLS,
came the necessity of driving the bow upwards in the advent of a casuality. Fairwater planes
were incapable of doing this in a hurry, especially in the VLS boats. Thus the return to the
bow planes. (Among other small reasons, mostly named by others).
Under ice ops has little to with it, 'cause if necessary they could have made the planes
go vertical also. And sorry Mark, operating USN boomers under the ice is unnecessary
and strategically a bad idea.
Scope's under...
Tim McFeely
ex-TM2(SS)...a dying breed
tim...@usa.net
ad...@osfn.rhilinet.gov
McKellar
One key advantage in mounting them on the bow (as will be done on the new
Seawolf) is for under ice operations.
On the Los Angeles class the planes can not be turned vertical. On earlier
and other classes of US subs they could be turned vertical and as a
result, these boats could push up through thicker ice than the Los Angeles
boats can.
As time has passed, and sub hunting has become more advanced, unde ice
operations has become more and more important.
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess the US always has a boomer or two
under the pole now and the USSR did - who knows what the Russians are
doing.
And where the boomers go, the attack boats go to hunt them.
Mark
Eric Holwitt
>What are the advantages and disadvantages of mounting submarine
>diveplanes on the bow vs on the sail ??
>
>Thanks
>
>Tom
Placing the diving planes on the sail removed a source of noise
from the bow of the ship. This source of noise interfered with
the bow mounted sonar.
Eric Holwitt
hol...@rfr.brooks.af.mil
Ray Wilson
>
>
> In article <4a7mup$s...@centaur.achilles.net>, Tom Rea <tr...@achilles.net> writes:
> > What are the advantages and disadvantages of mounting submarine
> > diveplanes on the bow vs on the sail ??
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tom
>
> Sail: More stable at PD.
>
Sail mounted more stable at PD?! Broaching with sail mounted planes
is a nightmare! (Broaching is not uncommon in the North Atlantic.)
You get these big 'ole wings slapping on the surface of the water,
making all kinds of noise. Meanwhile, CO or OOD yelling: "GET ME
DOWN DIVING OFFICER, GET ME DOWN."
Ray Wilson, Ex-boomer puke. SSBN-656(G)
Ray Wilson
>
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of mounting submarine
> diveplanes on the bow vs on the sail ??
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
When I went through Submarine School in Groton, they said the bowplanes
were moved from the bow to the fairwater (sail) to get them away from
the hydrophones (sonar array) in the bow. The hydraulics make too much
noise. As far as ship control, having them on the sail is inferior. So
the trend is to move them back to the bow. (LikeSeawolf) Of course,
what I was told may not be accurate.
Ray
BlackBeard
wrote:
>
> Sail mounted more stable at PD?! Broaching with sail mounted planes
> is a nightmare! (Broaching is not uncommon in the North Atlantic.)
> You get these big 'ole wings slapping on the surface of the water,
> making all kinds of noise. Meanwhile, CO or OOD yelling: "GET ME
> DOWN DIVING OFFICER, GET ME DOWN."
>
> Ray Wilson, Ex-boomer puke. SSBN-656(G)
Yes, but despite that it was a stated feature of fairwater planes that they
gave better "fine" control at PD.
Now, as for driving skills, you can't compare a bus-driver (boomer) to a
ferrari driver (fast-attack) and be fair anyway. ;)
hehehe
BlackBeard
-. .- -..- --.-
De Profundis
Arved Sandstrom
you want to use as a specific geometric point of comparison is not good.
We're talking common engineering here - torque, moments, etc.
--
Arved H. Sandstro"m | YISDER ZOMENIMOR
Physical Oceanography Group | ORZIZZAZIZ
Dept.of Physics, Memorial Univ. of NFLD | ZANZERIZ
asnd...@crosby.physics.mun.ca | ORZIZ
Ray Wilson
Gotta love them 4 minute 40 second Navsats... Book sez get a fix every six!
I bet the fast attack drivers spent less time at PD, so law of averages apply!
Ray
Jason Phillip Fox
Sorry about the double post, my news reader died and I did not think
that the first post got through.
--
Jason Fox (jp...@owlnet.rice.edu)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing
which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable
creature indeed and has no chance of being free unless made and kept
so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
Jason Phillip Fox
: Putting _any_ planes close to the CG or center of buoyancy or whatever
: you want to use as a specific geometric point of comparison is not good.
: We're talking common engineering here - torque, moments, etc.
I will grant that fairwater planes are not as effective for changing
the angle on the boat, but what if the desired objective is fine depth
control WITHOUT changing the angle on the boat?
In this case your argument against the geometric center does not make
sense.
JAMES LYONS
>I was on a diesel boat (Gudgeon ss567) and I remember how hard it was to
>get into and work around the masts and antennas in the sail. I assume that
>having bow planes up there would make it even worse. And where you can't
>get to easy, proper maintenance is rarely done. And we all know poor
>maintenance on things penetrating the hull is BAD.........VERY BAD....
>
Poor maintenance is bad PERIOD. Ask the BONEFISH crew...
Joseph P. Hillenburg
>Have the U.S. and France ever truly agreed upon anything of
>substance...with the possible exception of Jerry Lewis:-):-)?
Uh, that's not exactly a point of agreement. The French can have him.
--
Joseph P. Hillenburg
Email: mailto:johi...@indiana.edu
WWW Page: http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~johillen/
Dan Lawrence
planes on the '88's was to be able to control the massive amount of
weight forward when you're at P/D and low on stores.
Sail planes are wonderful things to have below P/D because you can
control the ship's depth very easily without a lot of movement from the
stern panes and taking angles. True, you could make the fore and aft
planes (on a bow-plane rigged boat) work in concert to control the depth,
but now you're moving two large pieces of metal with a hydraulic system
instead of just one. More noise, unless you're _very_ good at sound
isolation. Bow planes are also quite close to the main sonar sensors and
provide a good distraction for the operators intent on listening to a
possible transient (somewhere).
On a first or second flight '88, long at sea and low on stores there is a
massive amount of water forward with no real mass controlling it. At
P/D, when a state 2.5 wave rolls over you and the bow gets a notion to
decrease depth there is nothing you can do with sail planes to keep the
momentum from building and keep the bow down -- so you go flying and the
DO gets his rear end right royally chewed out.
There are some major tradeoffs with either type of design, but with the
VLS systems put aboard the latest boats it really makes sense to put
something nearby to be able to control the attitude.
Dan Lawrence
dan_la...@cc.atinc.com
tim_mcfeely
> I was on a diesel boat (Gudgeon ss567) and I remember how hard it was to
> get into and work around the masts and antennas in the sail. I assume that
> having bow planes up there would make it even worse. And where you can't
> get to easy, proper maintenance is rarely done. And we all know poor
> maintenance on things penetrating the hull is BAD.........VERY BAD....
>
> heavily strengthened with doubler plates and structure in order to handle
> the kind of stresses from sail planes. How does this affect the boat?
>
> Oh yeah, and lets see the U.S. went to bow planes and the French went to
> sail planes on their last boats.......obviously these 2 navies don't
> agree.
>
>
> Regards, Guy
> Tim, this one's for you\/
> (replacing the bandaids on my knuckles)
> (cleaning the smudges up off the floor)
> (god I hate it when my knuckles drag like that)
> amii...@aol.com
>
>
>>>>
I guess I have two takes on this:
Fairwater Planes:
1. Finer depth control than bow planes at slow speeds.
2. More noise when the planes slap during rough PD evolutions, particularly when they
are at full dive trying to get the damn boat down as has been indicated by a boomer
sailor earlier in this thread.
3. Less impact on the Center of Gravity, therefore less ability to affect ships angle of
attack. Minimal affect on the VLS boats with full VLS tubes.
4. Virtually worthless at high speeds. In fact a 688 class can still maintain some semblance
of depth control even after a catastrophic failure with the fairwater planes at full
dive/rise at any speed. Unable to singly recover from a catastrophic failure of the
stern planes.
5. Already crowded sail space has one more intrusion with hydraulic actuator and linkage
necessary to move fairwater planes. More strengthening is not necessarily needed because
of the ice-hard sails.
Bow Planes:
1. Mediocre control at PD. However just like high speed ops lockouts on the stern plane
and rudder during > than 20 knot operations, you can put a PD lockout on the bowplanes
to limit movement at periscope depth and make it easier for the Helmsman to keep
it on depth. There does need to be a ‘crisis button’ which would allow the Diving Officer or the
Helmsman to switch it off during Emergency Deep situations instantly.
2. Quieter at PD as long as the bow is submerged.
3. Greatest impact on the Center of Gravity. Necessary to recover from some manuevers
or depth excursions (within the safety margins) in VLS boats.
4. Allows more flexibility in manuevering, but a catastrophic failure in the full dive position
requires an immediate emergency blow. May be able to recover from a catastrophic failure
of the stern planes.
5. Removes hardware from crowded sail and puts it in crowded Combat Systems Spaces, MBTs,
and again back close to the hull arrays (although they ain’t the primary sensors anymore). More strengthening is needed around the
hull at the hull penetrations to accept the pounding and stress
on the bow planes.
Looks like most items seem to favor the bow planes. You take your pick, I was just adding
my take on the situation. My preference is... well it is... classified, no its... damned if I know.
Steve Atkatz
>bow planes on the '88's was to be able to control the massive
>amount of weight forward when you're at P/D and low on stores.
Also I would think that it's a lot easier to ice harden a sail
without sail planes than one with them. Don't forget, one day
soon all the 637's will be gone.
--
A to Z
When those around you are nervous, irritable, cranky and upset,
and you're calm, cool and collected; maybe they know something
you don't.
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Bow Planes:
> 4. Allows more flexibility in manuevering, but a catastrophic failure in the
> full dive position requires an immediate emergency blow. May be able to
> recover from a catastrophic failure of the stern planes.
When I worked on the bow planes for the Batch 2 Trafalgars, one design
requirement was to be able to recover from worst-case jammed stern
planes, at maximum depth and speed... to be able to keep the boat from
going below crush depth. It can be done, but it's a lot of work...
> Looks like most items seem to favor the bow planes. You take your pick, I was
> just adding my take on the situation. My preference is... well it is...
> classified, no its... damned if I know.
> Scope's under...
> Tim McFeely
AFAIK the RN has never even seriously considered fairwater planes. Don't
know why not: maybe just irrational prejudice, or "we never did it that
way so we won't start now", or maybe there is a good reason for it.
Certainly we never even did a feasability check on using fairwater planes
on the B2TC: no customer interest.
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul F Austin
>From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Advantages/disadvantages re: mounting of diveplanes
>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 95 17:05:05 GMT
>In article <4aqf63$9...@shiva.usa.net> Tim writes:
>> Bow Planes:
>> 4. Allows more flexibility in manuevering, but a catastrophic failure in the
>> full dive position requires an immediate emergency blow. May be able to
>> recover from a catastrophic failure of the stern planes.
>When I worked on the bow planes for the Batch 2 Trafalgars, one design
>requirement was to be able to recover from worst-case jammed stern
>planes, at maximum depth and speed... to be able to keep the boat from
>going below crush depth. It can be done, but it's a lot of work...
That's amazing. At _literally_ max depth and speed, I don't think any of the
-585s, -594s, -637s or -688s could recover from a stern plane jam. I've read
(in _Running Critical_) that the -688s use procedural protection i.e,
restrictions on operating envelope by imposing speed limits with depth and I'm
sure the other classes did also. Paul, I realize you'd be shot at sunrise if
you commented but regardless of the moment exerted by the bow planes, the
planesman would have to be awfully fast to avoid a fatal depth transient. I
suspect the B2Ts also restrict speed at test depth.
Jason Phillip Fox
[snipped]
: When I worked on the bow planes for the Batch 2 Trafalgars, one design
: requirement was to be able to recover from worst-case jammed stern
: planes, at maximum depth and speed... to be able to keep the boat from
: going below crush depth. It can be done, but it's a lot of work...
Is it also possible to recover from a worst-case jammed bow plane
casualty at max depth and speed?
It would seem to me that a bow plane jam could be worse, depending on
the relative effects on the boat.
A stern plane jammed at full dive tries to put a down angle on teh
boat by pushing the stern up. The recovery for the bow plane pushes
the bow up, and tries to take angle off of the boat, which works for
the best both ways.
A bow plane jammed at full dive not only noses the boat down, but also
pushes the bow down. Using the stern plane to take the angle off of
the boat tries to take the angle off by pushing teh stern farther DOWN
than the bow, which is not moving the boat in the right directoin.
I have never been on a boat with bow planes, so I am not sure how much
of a concern this is, but it seems like it could be important. Does
anyone now how this works out in reality?
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Is it also possible to recover from a worst-case jammed bow plane
> casualty at max depth and speed?
Yes.
> It would seem to me that a bow plane jam could be worse, depending on
> the relative effects on the boat.
Apparently not, but I was involved in the hydraulics rather than the
hydrodynamics :) We just took the required outputs for each scenario and
put together a system to deliver those control settings no matter what.
How those control outputs were derived, I don't know: Ouija boards and
chicken entrails seemed distinct possibilities to us at the time.
Steve Atkatz
>When I worked on the bow planes for the Batch 2 Trafalgars, one
design
>requirement was to be able to recover from worst-case jammed
stern
>planes, at maximum depth and speed... to be able to keep the
boat from
>going below crush depth. It can be done, but it's a lot of
work...
HeHeHeHe. . . .
Takes me back to my days on ALBACORE, the very first tear drop
hull ever. Battery powered, with 504 Guppy cells in 1600 tons, 2
counter rotating speed screws with no interest in noise
reduction. And we had to figure out how to drive it. BTW we had
teeny tiny bow planes and a compensating fin on the sail to keep
off some of the heel on fast turns. Every maneuver was an
adventure generally ending with "Full Rise on All
Planes", "All Back Emergency" and blowing everything including
sanitaries. It was our work that's the reason your number of
surfaces equal your number of dives.
DBF,
--
A to Z
If in trouble, if in dobt,
Run in circles, scream and shout
tim_mcfeely
<Stuff snipped>
> -585s, -594s, -637s or -688s could recover from a stern plane jam. I've read
> (in _Running Critical_) that the -688s use procedural protection i.e,
> restrictions on operating envelope by imposing speed limits with depth and I'm
> sure the other classes did also. Paul, I realize you'd be shot at sunrise if
> you commented but regardless of the moment exerted by the bow planes, the
> planesman would have to be awfully fast to avoid a fatal depth transient. I
> suspect the B2Ts also restrict speed at test depth.
>>>>
safety requirement and NOT a warfighting requirement. When the balloon goes
up, anything goes. Being fast (as in the planesmen) is not necessarily a lifesaver,
being correct is. Any catastrophic failure can be dealt with. Their are procedures
that cover everything. Following those procedures and being flexible enough to
deal with any variation from the expected are what Submarine Quals are all about.
Obviously, evolutions that stress the boat (such as below test depth excursions),
are not something to be considered lightly, however they are not necessarily fatal.
Test depth is nothing more than the recommended maximum operating depth. It
is typically some percentage of the calculated crush depth. In the USN, these are
extremely optimistic figures and while the boats built at EB are constructed
by a bunch of drunken fools, they do seem to work.
Scope's under...
Tim McFeely
fatemehm...@gmail.com
> > diveplanes on the bow vs on the sail ??
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tom
>
> Sail: More stable at PD.
>
>
> --
> Student Informatics (SigProc), University of Oslo
> -- 10 DAYS LEFT -- :-)
> <URL: http://www.ifi.uio.no/%7ejensh/
sorry for my bad english if i made mistake in pharse!!!
