|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: I hadn't thought of this until just tonight, but the design of the Typhoon* class missile sub puts the missiles in two side-by-side rows that are located between twin small diameter pressure hulls and only attached to them via a single inspection hatch on each tube. During submerged operations the missile tubes are surrounded by water in a free-flooding section of the sub's interior. This could well have been due to the realization that a missile explosion inside of the main pressure hull ("hulls" in the case of Typhoon, there are four separate pressure hulls inside of the exterior hull connected by hatches) could doom the whole sub. This was probably mostly to keep the weight of the missiles on/near the centerline and to minimize the effects of the rapid weight shifts was the missile was ejected and the tube subsequently backflooded from the sea. Had they been located on the centerline of the pressure hulls, they would have had a much longer lever arm and consequently induced higher loadings and motions. I doubt there position would have made much difference in the event of accidental ignition and the subsequent explosion. I'm wondering if the area around the tubes in the forward outer hull is free-flood or filled with stainless steel buoyancy balls like we us in similar areas outside the pressure hull in ours. Except we don't use any such things. I assumed it was free-flooding, but there don't seem to be any limber holes visible above water when surfaced to let the air out on diving, unless it comes out of the hinge end of the missile doors. ISTR there being a number of vents topside on the missile decks... But keep in mind two things; A) the Soviets did use doors on limber holes sometimes, and B) modern [nuclear] submarines don't crash dive or crash surface. You don't need the big honkin' limber holes characteristic of the diesel boats. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.history message , Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:38:24, Derek Lyons posted: Dr J R Stockton wrote: In sci.space.history message , Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:18:12, Derek Lyons posted: Dr J R Stockton wrote: For a solid, assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant actually detonating, the initial bang may be no more than a warship should be designed to accept from enemy munitions. You have utterly no fecking clue what you are talking about - that 'initial bang' [that a warship is capable of enduring] is equivalent of a solid motor roughly big enough to toss a potato the length of a football pitch... I.E. insignificiant. Evidently you have only served in shoddy ships. The HMS Vanguard which I have been on was much more solidly built. Note that HMS Victorious took three successive kamikaze hits, and was launching planes within the hour. A certain other Navy was less robust. I exaggerate some, but the essence of there - no ship can (or ever had) been able to take the internal detonation of any but the smallest range of militarily useful solid rocket motors. It was with that possibility in mind that I wrote, as you quoted, "assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant actually detonating". Once you get above 1klb equivalent, which isn't a big motor, you're talking ship killers. -- (c) John Stockton, near London. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036) -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
Note that HMS Victorious took three successive kamikaze hits, and was launching planes within the hour. A certain other Navy was less robust. Well, the next time the Germans send out a super battleship to destroy the Royal Coast Guard, don't come looking to us if you want to borrow a Catalina or two, limey. ;-) Pat |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Rick Jones wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: Derek Lyons wrote: When we saw the pictures (and I'm not certain they've ever been declassified) the general opinion was that the crew was damm lucky the K-219 surfaced at all. For a couple of years afterwards, we kept the unclassified pictures posted on the doors of the DC gear lockers as a reminder. The ones of the sub on the surface with the launch hatches blown off? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...-87-07261.JPEG http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...rine/k-219.jpg Is it "normal" for the planes on the sail to be like that? Only when you are surfacing through ice. I don't know if they put them in that position to make the sub more visible for surface rescue force ships and radar, or they lost all hydraulic pressure and they just pivoted down under their own weight. I suspect the former, and that the intention was to use them to reflect radar in case the rescue forces arrived at night. Pat |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.history message , Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:38:24, Derek Lyons posted: I exaggerate some, but the essence of there - no ship can (or ever had) been able to take the internal detonation of any but the smallest range of militarily useful solid rocket motors. It was with that possibility in mind that I wrote, as you quoted, "assuming that the case bursts, rather than the propellant actually detonating". That's a difference without a distinction. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Derek Lyons wrote:
ISTR there being a number of vents topside on the missile decks... But keep in mind two things; A) the Soviets did use doors on limber holes sometimes, and B) modern [nuclear] submarines don't crash dive or crash surface. You don't need the big honkin' limber holes characteristic of the diesel boats. Want to see one crash dive with air flying out over the missile deck?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfMxcNvJKEo Apparently they crank up the stern, flood the forward ballast tanks and use the bow planes and its screws to force it underwater, using its wide hull to shove it under even though it still was positive buoyancy. Pat |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Derek Lyons wrote:
Rick Jones wrote: I've also since gotten a reply from a museum in the UK who were kind enough to send along a cut-away drawing of a Polaris showing how it was one large chunk of propellant with the separate nozzles. If I am reading the drawing correctly, it says there were four holes in the propellant at the bottom, perhaps aligned with the nozzles, and the star pattern was in the top portion of the propellant. I've asked their permission to redistribute the diagram and will do so when I get their permission if folks would like. I'd be very interested in seeing it. As I've gotten permission to share the diagram, and I happen to have a way to do so broadly: ftp://netperf.org/polaris_1st_stage003.jpg For purposes of attribution, this came to me courtesy of the Cosford (?) RAF Museum in the UK. After looking at it further, it looks like the four holes converge a little ways up the stage at a point where the star pattern in the fuel begins. rick jones -- I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of "when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Rick Jones wrote:
As I've gotten permission to share the diagram, and I happen to have a way to do so broadly: ftp://netperf.org/polaris_1st_stage003.jpg Now, that's _odd_. The base looks like a oversized primer on a artillery shell cartridge. I wonder if the little cone shaped chunk of propellant at the base gets ignited from below and serves to keep water out of the nozzles till the missile gets airborne and the main section of the grain ignites from the top of the central bore, like is usual in a solid motor. It also looks like some other type of fuel mixture is used near the base and inside the grooves of the star-shaped bore. The drawing doesn't show any details of the fluid injection system of the nozzles though, nor where the freon for it is stored. Pat |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Pat Flannery wrote:
Rick Jones wrote: As I've gotten permission to share the diagram, and I happen to have a way to do so broadly: ftp://netperf.org/polaris_1st_stage003.jpg As I indicated to Rick in email, that diagram is a standard Navy one. The Navy, at least back then, tended to have one diagram for one concept ('Polaris first stage motor' in this instance) and then reused it widely. The style is unmistakable once you've seen, as I have, enough of them. I probably even have that very diagram somewhere in my collection. The drawing doesn't show any details of the fluid injection system of the nozzles though, nor where the freon for it is stored. The diagram shows the first stage, which used jetavators or rotating nozzles. Fluid injection was used on the second stage. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
US captured V-1 missile tests 1949 - 1951
Derek Lyons wrote:
The drawing doesn't show any details of the fluid injection system of the nozzles though, nor where the freon for it is stored. The diagram shows the first stage, which used jetavators or rotating nozzles. Fluid injection was used on the second stage. My slip. Was there some sort of ignition system at the base mounted in the center of the four nozzles? The diagram seems to show a central hole down there under the odd cone-shaped chunk of propellant at the base of the fuel grain. Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ÐÂÎÅ:¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡News,Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400,Invitation Visit! | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | November 1st 07 03:03 AM |
¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ‡ø´É²è‰Ø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÕˆÓ^Ùp£¡Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400,Invitation Visit ! | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | October 12th 07 06:46 AM |
¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique (1912-1949) Porcelain Teapot 528 Chinaware 400, Invitation Visit! | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | September 24th 07 05:23 AM |
¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ¡¢´ÉÆ÷400¼þÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique 1912-1949 Porcelain teapot 528 chinaware 400 invitation visit | xjx588[_3_] | SETI | 0 | September 17th 07 09:11 AM |
¹Å¶£¨1912-1949£©Ãñ¹ú´É²èºø528°Ñ´ÉÆ÷400¼þ£¬ÑûÇë¹ÛÉÍ£¡Antique(1912-1949)Porcelain Teapot528 Chinaware400,invitation visit! | 456 | Misc | 0 | September 17th 07 03:06 AM |