Accuracy and reliability of data from "the‑blueprints.com"

[QuarterMaster]

ALCON,

Has anyone dealt with "the‑blueprints.com"?

I'm a fan of the one-off USS NARWHAL SSN-671, and one day hope to to my first scratch built hull with her. A rather unique boat in US SSN history.

Any comments regarding this?: USS NARWHAL SSN-671 plans

Other possible sources, seem's she's a tough one to nail down.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

I think you would be better served going with the Greg Sharpe STURGEON plans and alter those to NARWAL standard.

David

[QuarterMaster]

I think you would be better served going with the Greg Sharpe STURGEON plans and alter those to NARWAL standard.

David

Roger that Dave, I understand externally they're close enough, I'm just really concerned about the intake scoops. Were they actually used, size and location?

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Roger that Dave, I understand externally they're close enough, I'm just really concerned about the intake scoops. Were they actually used, size and location?

As a Navy Diver I read a circular issued for the community, informing sub tender and SIMA types that performing ships husbandry tasks around the stern planes of that boat to take special care during the tag-out phase of the job, as the condenser intakes were in the leading edges of the horizontal stabilizers and you didn't want to be anywhere near them in case some yahoo engineering type lit off the pumps. The arrangement was much like what the Britt's did with their UPHOLDERS and other later classes of SSN's.

[QuarterMaster]

That's awesome! So the water is drawn in through through a "openings/single long vent " along that leading edge, in through the horizontal stabilizer, plumbed back forward to the coolant loop? Most of the stuff I saw lead me to believe they had "scoops" on the belly like an ALFA or something.

I can see that. If memory serves, our class boats had 18" MSW plumbing on the intakes and discharges, there is no reason to see why you can't get the same cross sectional area along those leading edges.

Picking some long dead brain cells, but the intakes/discharges were not just "holes", more like an annular ring, which had grating. But the center covered the "valve" which could "pull in" and seal for flooding casualties. I do remember this plumbing is of major concern at depth. an 18" diameter pipe giving away at 200', much less 500', was our worse nightmare. I also remember exceeding 35% flooding in the engine room would give us such an up angle, the ballast tanks essentially become useless as the air escapes from open tank vents underneath and the bass-ackward slide to the bottom would begin.

Even though we were authorized to take photo's of GRANT in Drydock (good old Los Alamos) this is as close as I dared to taking pictures back there! Sorry for the quality, these old pictures are fading, wish we had scanners years earlier to have preserved them. I left them as simple holes on my 1:96 boat for drainage.

[Vepr157]

That's awesome! So the water is drawn in through through a "openings/single long vent " along that leading edge, in through the horizontal stabilizer, plumbed back forward to the coolant loop? Most of the stuff I saw lead me to believe they had "scoops" on the belly like an ALFA or something.

I think I may be responsible for some of the inaccurate drawings online. Before I knew where the Narwhal's MSW suctions were, I posted my conjectural outboard profile of the sub on reddit. I had naively assumed that the MSW intakes were Russian-style.

I have since learned from some Narwhal vets that, like David said, the MSW intakes were on the stern stabilizers, just like British SSNs. The reason that this was not pursued for any other U.S. submarines relates to what you alluded to about the danger of flooding from these large-diameter pipes. The MSW pipes had to go all the way from the stern stabilizers through the aft pressure hull bulkhead and to the condenser, which is a pretty long run. This length was not compatible with SUBSAFE regulations, so it could not be put on future submarines. I suspect the suctions looked a bit like the Albacore's sail intake: an oval hole with a few cross-bars or a strainer.

In regard to accurate Narwhal plans, I have so far been unsuccessful. The Piping TABs that some of the veterans still have remain confidential, and of course the Booklet of General Plans would almost certainly be classified too. The only "authentic" drawing I've ever seen is in Norman Friedman's U.S. Submarines since 1945, and that is a hand-drawn sketch. Note that many sources incorrectly state the beam was 37'. In reality it was 33", a bit bigger than the 637s and the same diameter as the 688s.

Jacob

[QuarterMaster]

I think I may be responsible for some of the inaccurate drawings online. Before I knew where the Narwhal's MSW suctions were, I posted my conjectural outboard profile of the sub on reddit. I had naively assumed that the MSW intakes were Russian-style.

I have since learned from some Narwhal vets that, like David said, the MSW intakes were on the stern stabilizers, just like British SSNs. The reason that this was not pursued for any other U.S. submarines relates to what you alluded to about the danger of flooding from these large-diameter pipes. The MSW pipes had to go all the way from the stern stabilizers through the aft pressure hull bulkhead and to the condenser, which is a pretty long run. This length was not compatible with SUBSAFE regulations, so it could not be put on future submarines. I suspect the suctions looked a bit like the Albacore's sail intake: an oval hole with a few cross-bars or a strainer.

In regard to accurate Narwhal plans, I have so far been unsuccessful. The Piping TABs that some of the veterans still have remain confidential, and of course the Booklet of General Plans would almost certainly be classified too. The only "authentic" drawing I've ever seen is in Norman Friedman's U.S. Submarines since 1945, and that is a hand-drawn sketch. Note that many sources incorrectly state the beam was 37'. In reality it was 33", a bit bigger than the 637s and the same diameter as the 688s.

Jacob

Thanks Jacob!

If I stumble across anything myself I'll post here.

I'm going to ask for any NARWHAL Vets' of FB and other social media sites.

Ed