I want to create a mixture of a sailboat and a submarine (pic rel.). (open holes is where 2 PMMA see through domes come)
How do I create something like this out of nothing?
I want to create a mixture of a sailboat and a submarine (pic rel.). (open holes is where 2 PMMA see through domes come)
I know the glass material, and by hull material I think of using either: steel, lightweight basalt concrete and basalt fibers mixed within, resin/fiberglass, steelinnerlayers+resin outer layer for good anti rust protection. its 2.5m wide as I want it towable on the road. whole deck is covered in solar panels. steering underwater is done by propeller at the front for direction and 2 proppelers at the rear that can aim up and down, to get height difference.
interior looks kinda like this, on the left is kitchen hardware on your right dishwasher, washing machine/dryer and the blue round room is the bathroom, where you have a toilet, shower and moon pool for diving (why the shape is round is for the pressure chamber). under the couch and all around are water tanks for diving and oxigen/air tanks for breathing.
there is 2 latches on the top, one is for exit the other is for airvent for the kitchen and engine, and another emergency escape. Under the boat are 2 latches either side as well. One is for the moon pool, and the other is at the kitchen floor and is another entry/exit for on land while on a camping for example so it also functions as a caravan besides being a submarine/boat.
I'm not sure this all might function but I dream of making a sailboat/submarine that has the same luxury interior as a private yet, which happens to be 2.5meters wide as well, same as my boat
So my questions to other annons is,
As I don't have any experience making boats or even going on sea, how can I find the right people/resources/knowledge for creating something like this? I probably need some help.
the design might change but this is what my idea is so far. my first design looked like a coca cola can with 2 domes on both sides, and my current one is more streamlined for ocean travel, which submarines (small) mostly aren't made for.
30 meters in depth is the rule of thumb to avoid turning your tin can into a high efficiency washing machine from the motion of the waves.
You don't understand how fierce the ocean is. I'm not saying that to be an butthole. This is life saving advice. Don't be Doug.
This is almost as hopelessly ill-considered as the OPs ramblings and like those ramblings ignores a host of considerations and realities regarding the operation and sea keeping abilities of both surface *and* submersible vessels.
Buy a sailboat and sail around in the open ocean for a year or two, then come back to your idea and see what you think then.
I like your ambition and i will never tell anyone 'it's a bad idea'. That said marine vehicles are a science. There is alot to know.
The amount of wetted surface will be really high and i'm not sure if sail power would be enough to go anywhere at more than a couple of knots. Not to mention when you take into account the stuff that grows on your boat. even with good anti-fowling like copper-coat you still have to clean it off pretty often and it all adds up to slow you down!
fiberglass is your best option, look up the various weaves and come up with a good laying up schedule. You'll want good insulation because you will get damp as heck in there with limited ventilation. Regular boast suffer as it is.
Having basically zero freeboard will leave your sails vulnerable to getting caught in waves and that is potentially a disaster as your mast will likely break under the load.
then your keel will need to be hecking good because you probably won't have the usual stability of the beam of the boat (width). Not to mention that you will need to submerge a closed vessel full of air. That will just naturally want to float. you will need to incorporate big ballast tanks that you can compress and decompress as and when needed.
people make DIY submarines. you can fin a few good ones on YT. message them and explain what you want to do. they will have advice on what to
My main take away advice would be; look into small but seaworthy boats. there is a growing trend in these at the moment and the main man who kind of started it all was Sven yrvind. Maybe a boat similar to his philosophy is a good starting point be for moving to semi-submersible sailing boat.
there are forums like boat design net but they can all be a bit gatekeepery. I found them to be a bunch of naysayers and not willing tosee the potential of some of my ideas.
Good luck buddy. I'm rooting for you
Maybe you could make it out of fibreglass. typical tensile strength of it is 9,000-18,000 PSI, and compressive strength is 15,000-18,000, it's stronger than steel by weight. and you have the benefit of being able to mold it into any shape you want easily, you would need a ballast, so your hull would have to be hollow and you would need pumps to pump in water into it to submerge, and vice versa. The only thing that matters for a buoyancy is water displacement, as long as the water you are displacing is heavier than the weight of the boat/submarine, it will float. not sure how a sail setup would workout on it though
>compressive strength
>any shape
These are not compatible concepts.
You can make the initial shape for the hull, but for interior and fine exterior details it has excellent moldability and you can pretty much make anything from it, walls, countertop, bed area etc can all be made into one huge seamless piece
resin composites burn
It can withstand temps of upto 500C before melting. but you are right, would have to have some sort of insulation barrier to keep the fibreglass off of hot components
fiberglass is also bullet proof once it's and inch in thickness or beyond
> I probably need some help.
my advice is to start smaller and also unless you have $200,000+ you're not going to be able to afford any outside help.
Create a fully functional remote controlled scale model first.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
Start by talking to a naval architect, he'll tell you it's not possible, aside from that you wouldn't be able to build a pressure hull yourself; and you probably couldn't build a pressure hull with a fricking sail bearing mast coming directly out of it putting torque on the thing even if you had the finest U-boat engineers of uncle Adi's happy fun times reich doing all of the work.
you sound like a bot.
first insult, then tell me to get information why at someone else. its on the surface when it gets torque, which doesnt matter since every sailboat gets that, its one giant frame no prob. you need to weight the lowest part and make the upper structure light af to stabilize. How is a fricking mast supposed to damage a pressure hull, it only flips the whole structure a few degrees nothing else.
Aright, you fricking silly billy. A naval architect is an expert on the design of boats who will actually understand how to design a hull and mast to bear loads and not sink or rip apart, talking to a naval architect is step #1 when you want to design a boat so you don't launch something that doesn't float or floats for just long enough to drag you down with it, freeing us from your low-quality posts.
Torque is a measure of force applied, in this case, by your very heavy mast whipping the frick around in the wind as it waves around on top of a moving boat. On a boat designed by a qualified naval architect, the mast is attached to the structure of the boat in several places to keep it from moving around and working loose, going down to the keel where it is actually mounted.
A pressure hull has to be pretty much perfect, if you have something going through it, it's not going to be even close to waterproof, and as the mast moves around very slightly in the wind it's going to oval out the part of the pressure hull it's speared through, which means it it just won't keep water out. If you just weld the mast to the top of the hull so you don't compromise the important water-keeper-outer, the mast will simply flop off of the top of the boat, probably tearing off the part of the hull you've welded it to.
Your hullform does not make sense, at either the fore or aft, I don't know how you intend to turn that rudder, which also would not work because despite how fricking stupidly tall you've made it, your bizzare moron hull won't flow enough water by it.
You have four(????) dive planes at the stern, but no bow planes, meaning that you would have no pitch control when diving or surfacing, an absolutely unforgiveable sin in the world of submarines.
Your hull would have so little freeboard that the deck would most likely be awash in even very calm conditions, but you have no railing aft where you will be spending most of your time in order to furl, unfurl, and trim sails, and steer.
How do you intend to propel your moron submarine underwater, by the way?
Your interior would be hellish and dungeon-like, in spite of being ridiculously tall. Ventilation looks like it would be nonexistant, something a naval architect would be able to help you with, if your entire proposal werent trash.
Your moonpool wouldn't work on a vessel that small, the boat would pitch and roll way to much, the whole thing would just sink the moment you opened that thing up as water sloshes in.
You can't make a waterproof hull if part of it is just attatched by latches (what kind?)
Where will your chain locker be?
How will you drain water out of it after a dive?
Where is your bilge?
Where are your pumps?
Where is the power supply for your pumps, appliances, motive power, and lights and radio?
Where is your rigging? How are your sails going to be held up and manipulated?
That rear hull would be crazy delicate and would fatigue almost immediately thanks to those concentric square angles.
How are you going to tie up to a regular dock with suck a massive tumblehome and several horizontal control surfaces sticking more than a foot out from the sides of your boat?
Have you considered how top heavy your design is? As you've drawn it it would flip over the moment is hits the water. Even without the mast and sails it would be dangerously top heavy.
Your shit sucks, I told you to speak to a professional because you cleary have no idea how to design a boat.
In fact you don't seem to know much about anything if you think the torque of a sail carrying mast on a very critical unsupported structural component that can't possibly do anything other than tear when subjected to those stresses are OK just because "every sailboat gets that", and "it only flips THE WHOLE STRUCTURE a few degrees", and because you apparently think that what you posted is "weight the lowest part and make the upper structure light af to stabilize".
I doubt the deck would tilt a lot if you add some really heavy weights at the total bottom of us just like a regular boat.
batteries, 2 propellers at the rear that can aim up and down and 1 at the front that help turning it.
the whole round chamber can be closed up, the airtanks next to it is the increase the pressure inside the room, there would be multiple pumps mounted to make that happen. wiring and tubes are not shown in the model yet for ventilation and electricity. batteries are hidden under the floor, its powered both by a small engine and solar panels.
All of the heavy internal parts are located lower on purpose, these are the water tanks batteries and ballast weights etc. it wont flip, the top will be lightweight, including the mast that is foldable and kept in place by multiple wires under tension.
>On a boat designed by a qualified naval architect, the mast is attached to the structure of the boat in several places to keep it from moving around and working loose, going down to the keel where it is actually mounted.
LOFL, utterly ignorant claim.
There are all kinds of mast mounting arrangements that don't involve stepping then directly on the keel or even piercing the deck/cabin envelope, as well as A frame and wishbone masts that eliminate much of the standing rigging typical of a single spar. All designed by qualified naval architects.
Same goes for submarines that have external load bearing structures and equipment that don't need to pierce the pressure hull in order to exist and/or function.
The OP may be a complete kook chasing a pipe dream but at least he admits he doesn't know what he's talking about. His idea is crazy and wildly impractical, but not impossible and certainly not for the reasons you have chosen to pontificate on.
Where's the fricking frame on OP's rape barrel?
He wants what would have to be at least a thirty foot mast on an 8 foot wide hull, there's no way he would be able to get enough framing on the inside of that b***h to bear up that kind of mast.
Real submarines typically have a pressure hull inside of a framework, with the sail or aircraft hangar mounted to the outside of the framework, but that's really not practical on something that small, the weight and lack of bouyancy would be too much.
>framing on the inside
You really are not qualified to be discussing this, or whether or not the typical solution (that you now admit exists) to having external structures on a submarine could be adapted or not. You seriously don't know frick all about naval architecture, rig engineering or what's possible.
"Since the submarine's electric motors did not have enough battery power to propel her to Hawaii, the ship's engineering officer Roy Trent Gallemore came up with a novel solution to their problem. Lieutenant Gallemore decided they should try to sail the boat to the port of Hilo, Hawaii. He therefore ordered a foresail made of eight hammocks hung from a top boom made of pipe bunk frames lashed firmly together, all tied to the vertical kingpost of the torpedo loading crane forward of the submarine's superstructure. "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_R-14_(SS-91)
Don't try to pretend that minisubs below a certain threshold don't have single layer hulls with an internal frame. On a sub that small , having an external frame with a hydrodynamic skin would just wouldn't work out on account of the square cube law, too little internal space for bouyancy and propulsion for too much weight.
>SS-91
>578 ton surfaced displacement, 186 foot 2 inch length
>A couple of hundred square feet of sail area
>2 (two) knots for manuevering until the battery recharges
>Equivalent to a tubby 40 foot narco sub made out of foam by an autistic man
I may not know what I'm talking about, and I may not be too smart, but I'm not stupid, and I know a bad idea when I hear it.
>Where's the fricking frame on OP's rape barrel?
Guess you missed this in your rush to be a hostile bloviating asswipe-
>the design might change but this is what my idea is so far
>I probably need some help.
Proving once again that as silly as he and his vision might be, he's more grounded than you are and unlike you, willing to admit that he's ignorant and might be wrong in his assumptions.
ignorant on what? I'm a new in this type of designs
>ignorant on what? I'm a new in this type of designs
Pretty much everything, which is normal for not having any experience.
There's no shame in that, the problem is that you don't seem to realize that someone with so little understanding of what goes into this kind of design needs to start big with general principles and them work down towards details like washing machines and moon pools and grinding your own stone powder to make cement.
You are essentially working backwards with an almost complete lack of understanding of what is involved.
It's like wanting to learn how to make a parachute of your own fanciful design and beginning by choosing the names of the sheep whose wool you will use and a color and asking what kind of material to use to make the pot you will dye the wool in before spinning and then either knitting or weaving it, while people tell you that a woolen parachute is impractical and useless and dangerous so none of that shit matters
i hope you have a few million dollars set aside OP
I dont intend to do so. I'm looking at basalt concrete which the romans used to make the tip of the largest dome in the world. Rocks are cheap, I'm thinking of powdering them, make cement and make a wooden cast to pour it into. The imporant strong elements in the sub I will leave steel.
this is stupid but i like it. for what reason would you want one? smuggling drugs? why not make a regular narco sub?
freedom, and security incase of SHTF situation.
Its also luxury to wake up underwater and look towards coral reefs. narco doesnt go full deep or have a sail. solar panels and sails should make this less dependable on oil, with a watermaker you only need fishing equipment to live from fish to stay long term on water.
You could also buy perfectly good boat for significantly less money and free dive if you want to see coral reefs.
By far the most absurdly unrealistic part of this fantasy proposal is the not just one but two women on board.
hehehe
inflatable floaties topside and a weighted fin below at the hull should make wobbling a lot harder.
What im trying to find is some material that is lighter than water but doesnt collapse in deep water, like foam. foam is super light except its made out of bubbles and when they rupture under pressure it just becomes a solid weight.
>material that is lighter than water but doesnt collapse in deep water
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_foam
https://www.trelleborg.com/en/applied-technologies/products-and-solutions/buoyancy/eccofloat
https://bluerobotics.com/store/watertight-enclosures/buoyancy/float-r1/
woah, thanks anon.
yeah I was trying to find that. The front part was a bit heavy, because its smaller in size but still same thickness hull. The front part has a lot of space for foam so with the deck added, that should really help stabilize the model I think.
Try boatdesign.net OP, they'll call you names but some of them do genuinely know their shit. I think this is a really dumb idea but I also love it a lot and I hope you succeed. Following this thread eagerly.
agree, make mast dual use snorkel.
seems having zero hull in the wind just sails cold work good
>How
You don't. Sail will not be able to provide enough thrust to counter the drag of a completely submerged hull.
you can attach inflatable floaties, it doesnt need to be submerged completely when its sailing above sea level.
>attach inflatable floaties
I don't think you understand buoyancy.
Care to guess the diameter of pontoon necessary to make up for almost the total displacement of a 2m diameter steel hull?
>I don't think you understand buoyancy.
>Care to guess the diameter of pontoon necessary to make up for almost the total displacement of a 2m diameter steel hull?
I dont think you do either, in order for a sealed air filled vessel of that size/ shape to reach maximum displacement it will almost always require weight to be *added* just to get it close to neutral buoyancy but still positive. To fully submerge that static bouyancy is then reduced beyond neutral to negative by taking on water ballast.
This is a basic principle of submersible design and many small subs with steel pressure vessels use the inherent positive bouyancy of that vessel as an escape mechanism if their ballast discharge sytem fails by jettisoning the mass of dead weight ballast used to get them near neutral buoyancy in the first place.
inb4
> HAHA. gotcha! The Alvin class DSV uses a titanium personnel sphere!!!
It still weighs far less than the 10,944 lbs of water that it's interior space alone would hold in water weight.
>I dont think you do either
It wasn't a trick. The point is that you wind up with about the same surface (no pun intended) area or more as you would just floating the hull.
This makes no sense in the context of buoyancy, and submersibles that use external tanks as outriggers that support the personnel vessel for stability and flotation while surfaced are a thing. There's a gazillion reasons why the OPs fantasy is absurd and wildly impractical, but suggesting a trimaran-like layout using external floation/ ballast tanks is actually as sensible an approach as any to actually realize his fever dream that doesn't even mention a water ballast system.
It doesn't matter, you're not going to create anything more than (you)s.
OP, you are dumb as shit. You can't sail a boat underwater, there's no wind,
You mean the part where he wants a dishwasher, and washer and dryer in a sailboat/submarine was'nt a huge mile tall fricking red flag that he was trolling for (you)s?
Fricking summergays, man.
You don't. Frick spoonfeeding. It's not even worth discussing because it's so stupid. Now go research and see why. Frick off with your toddler nonsense ditto anyone who doesn't instantly know it's nonsense.
it doesn't matter, you won't do it.
op i like your idea, but i really dont think a diy uboat is going to last long enough for your shtf scenario even if you didnt put a sail on it
Just make a submarine where the sail collapses down and you have to take the actually fabric or whatever sheet off. No it isn't going to be a faster process. If you want the sail to pilot the submarine under water, you're going to have to make it extend above the water line or literally use ocean currents instead of wind, which is going to be weird as frick, but what do you honestly expect? There is going to be a lot of points of failure.
checkmate dougnts, submarines already have sails AND masts
I love how all the big engineering brains itt arguing over materials/methods and what is/isn't possible haven't once bothered to consider or ask what the intended operating depth of the sub might be.
it doesnt matter, we understand that the top portion will be above water like a traditional u-boat and even then it just does not work with a sail
, and thats to say it can handle the pressure
the pressure difference between a uboat and a traditional boat is that the uboat needs to have pressure dispersed evenly on the sides and bottom in order to sink, while a boat only takes pressure on the bottom
>a boat only takes pressure on the bottom
a submarine *is* a boat
Also there are numerous multi hulls that use wave piercing hulls that can become fully submerged, as well as Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull vessels that are essentially crew/ cargo/working decks that sit on pylons atop what are essentially two submarines (pic related).
There's also other hybrids and semi submersibles that submerge for short periods and/or operate just at or barely below the surface.
Finally, there's no reason that a vessel designed for offshore passages under sail *needs* a traditional mast and rig, a kite could tow a vessel like that with only one or two lines coming above the water's surface.
Submerged gear is towed via lines and cables all the time.
OPs idea is impractical and silly as shown, but the concept ofcwind powering a submersible vessel isn't at all impossible or even technically that complex within certain parameters.
>the concept of wind powering a submersible vessel isn't at all impossible
You could say the same for magnetohydrodynamic propulsion.
Or paddles.
>a kite could tow a vessel like that with only one or two lines coming above the water's surface.
Doesn't a kite only go downwind, for the most part? Even foil kites can only just about manage a beam reach afaik, but I'm no expert. At least a sub would certainly offer plenty of lateral resistance lol.
>Doesn't a kite only go downwind, for the most part? Even foil kites can only just about manage a beam reach afaik, but I'm no expert.
A parafoil would be the rational choice (in context) and the need for tacking would be a given. A beam reach might seem impossibly off the wind to make much headway but how all the forces and thrust vectors add up is more complex than it might seem on paper. Lots of soft sails begin to stall when they get closer to the wind than a beam reach but on a moving object the objects forward speed adds to windspeed and also alters the direction of the apparent wind, which is how things like iceboats and multitudes can sail faster than the windspeed. It's also why no matter what the wind position is when you start out, with any wind you eventually end up close hauled in sail powered vehicles that make their own wind.
That's not going to happen with a sub but the nature of a foil kite is that the sail itself is moving forward independently of the vessel and can generate far more power than simple calculations would indicate. That's why traction kites are often steered in a pattern that maximizes power generation- they are essentially tacking.
>At least a sub would certainly offer plenty of lateral resistance lol.
That's unironically where sailing speed record attempts are going; the limits of planing or foil lifted hulls have pretty much been reached and the two contenders for an 80 knot threshold are using massive kites and "boats" that just exist to hold the crew and connect the kite to an underwater foil that creates negative lift to anchor the kite to the water and allow thrust vectoring to amplify the energy developed by the kite (pic related).
https://aegeanislands.promo/syroco-vs-sp80-the-race-to-create-the-worlds-fastest-sail-boat/
*multihulls* , not multitudes.