Shadowsage Posted March 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 He has stated it is not Rail-Technology; rather he has chosen SWATH instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I see. That ship you posted LVN is a SWATH ship. You can see the underwater portions in this angle shot. Its those underwater parts that give it stability over regular catamarans. Which is why they resemble nuclear submarine design. Where tear drop is actually more efficient than a blade while in water. Same reason mono-hulls these days have those fat bulbous noses on the bottom of the bows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 He has stated it is not Rail-Technology; rather he has chosen SWATH instead. I still maintain it is rail tech, but that Rl ships show that rails can be loaded with a low center of gravity. Also from your quote, I choose speed over stability, using the speed to avoid the rough weather which would pose a problem to the ships safety. Actually, what if the submerged pontoons were simple tubes, allowing water to flow through the middle while still providing the ability to increase stability? Just asking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted March 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 No they are not, they are twin standard displacement hulls, just extremely narrow, with massive engines stuck on top. Being a tube, I would assume that the motion of the water itself on the inside would slow the ship appreciably. If we accept that you have given up stability in the name of speed, then obviously the inherent flaws from engineering a twin-hulled ship without stabilizing influences will come out in full force; the structural stresses I have mentioned, stiffened turning radius, and the like. Of course, going by your first post in the thread one would assume it is not in-fact Rails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Being a tube, I would assume that the motion of the water itself on the inside would slow the ship appreciably. If we accept that you have given up stability in the name of speed, then obviously the inherent flaws from engineering a twin-hulled ship without stabilizing influences will come out in full force; the structural stresses I have mentioned, stiffened turning radius, and the like.Of course, going by your first post in the thread one would assume it is not in-fact Rails. Make it a wide diameter tube, like, 5m. I would accept the smaller turning radius, and structural stresses can be taken care of with advanced materials, so I would have to work on the ship, but there is nothing impossible about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 They aren't tubes because they need to act as the displacement for the ship. As tubes they wouldn't displace enough water to be bouyant. Which renders the design useless. If tubes worked better than submarine style it would be common practice already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowsage Posted March 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 They aren't tubes because they need to act as the displacement for the ship. As tubes they wouldn't displace enough water to be bouyant. Which renders the design useless.If tubes worked better than submarine style it would be common practice already. Effectively what I have found. Common usage isn't done because it compromises the designs too much with the buoyancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.