Albacore continued

[greenman407]

A Week! Wow, you got a severe case! Oh well, you can catch up on the reruns of Space 1999 and Star Trek

[greenman407]

Look at that Dashing, handsome Gent. This is my youngest, Nathan. Part time camera man for me. Poor Kid. Cares nothing for this Hobby, he just humurs the old man. He does enjoy driving my 1/8 scale gas buggy. There is still hope for him yet.

[greenman407]

One thing that I have noticed is that the difference in turning ability between the single prop Albacore and the dual prop Albacore is that the new configuration doesnt turn on a dime like the previous configuration. Now it turns on a Quarter. Perhaps and most likely because of the pivot point, which I would think are the stern planes is now a greater distance from the propellers. The Props are further away. The distance went from 1" to 3". So now we have an overall length of 42 1/2".

[Subculture]

Perhaps that's why they moved the props closer together on the final phase?

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

A Week! Wow, you got a severe case! Oh well, you can catch up on the reruns of Space 1999 and Star Trek

Blow chunks, pal!

David

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Perhaps that's why they moved the props closer together on the final phase?

I agree with Andy. Those propellers represent a lot of profile area and likely over-stabilized the hull about the yaw axis. That's what you're seeing; too much tail-feather on the arrow.

Don't think so? Then why does the XB-49 have fixed vertical stabilizers and the XB-35 does not? Propellers act as stabilizers if slung behind the c.g.

[greenman407]

I could always shorten the distance per the drawings, But once its done........its done.

[Subculture]

Depends on your priorities I guess. Whether a scale phase 4 look is more important than a tighter turning circle. No guarantee I guess that shortening will make a huge difference, although they must have had their reasons for make the mod in the first place- anyone done a back to back test with the two set-ups in model form?

[greenman407]

I Kinda like it the way it is. Kinda distinctive. Not another "ME TOO" sub model. Too bad Dave made me take off the bow planes. Ive got some Phaser cannons and Disruptor banks to go on next.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

I Kinda like it the way it is. Kinda distinctive. Not another "ME TOO" sub model. Too bad Dave made me take off the bow planes. Ive got some Phaser cannons and Disruptor banks to go on next.

You better be kidding!

Andy: They were looking at the optimal distance between discs that would still work to recover swirl energy.


Another concern was to avoid a distance that would generate a 'beat'. Each blade has a pressure front that travels behind it. The closer the screws get together, the greater the magnitude of the beat produced as the wash from the forward propeller blade back hits the face of its counterpart.


During the propeller studies motion picture cameras were mounted to look at the propeller -- I have to assume they injected a dye so observation how flow was acted upon by the propulsor.

The space between discs was reduced on at least two dry-dock availabilities.

David

[greenman407]

What? Phaser cannons and Disrupter banks? Nah, that was to see If I could get a rise out of you. Nah but a single 16" Naval gun mounted in the sail, like the M1, now thats an idea.

[greenman407]

Thats great info Dave about the experiments with the props. More.......................more. I have several books on the Albacore but they say nothing about it. Do you know of any book that I could buy that would give me more info on it?

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Thats great info Dave about the experiments with the props. More.......................more. I have several books on the Albacore but they say nothing about it. Do you know of any book that I could buy that would give me more info on it?

The recent one, that sited my articles in the bibliography.

David

[greenman407]

Im sorry Dave , I must have missed it. Point the way please.

[greenman407]

Monday, Jan 1st I got her back in the water. The ADF2 had held the previous setting, so that was good. However, Im not satisfied. It seems that settings 1 and 2 are not sensitive enough and setting three probably is but at setting three it starts all these Gyrations. So my thoughts are that I can increase the lash between the drive gears in the engine compartment slightly to reduce vibration. Or I could replace the ADF2 with the "Thor" pitch controller because it has a potentiometer to infinitely set sensitivity. Or I could possibly mount the ADF2 in its own WTC separately Its a work in progress. I am extremely satisfied with the dual prop setup and all the other functions are superb. We just got to get this little glitch thing worked out. There is no sense in increasing power with new motors if we cant utilize the power we already have.