Bronco Type XXIII in 1/35th scale

[redboat219]

David
Didn't you have the same problem with your scratchbuilt Hunley which was featured in Simply Submarines.

" It was the boat's static stabilizing forces at work which maintsined a near zero pitch angle. If I kept the speed of the boat below a critical point it could be controlled quite well. However exceeding this 'critical speed' underwater caused the Hunley model to pitch up and down uncontrollably, control restored only after backing off the throttle and waiting for the model to slow beneath the critical speed, at which point the model would respond to bow plane position again."

Could it be that the design of the Type XXIII's hull is suited for slow speed.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Hi David- sorry for the late reply. If I recall correctly, the OTW Type XXIII COG was about centered under the tower, so about 50%. That was using Bob's compressor based dive cylinder, so the free flood area was in the center.
I had no porpoising issues with that model. It drove great on the surface and underwater. It wasn't completely hands off though.
My only screw up was not using better linkages to the rear dive planes; when going in reverse, the force of the water actually pushed the planes in a more exaggerated position. **** poor planning on my part. The linkage needed to be braced/tunneled better to avoid the linkage rod bending to an obscene angle.
I free floated the stern planes off an angle keeper, and drove the front planes off a servo. Hope that helps some!
Sam

That helps a great deal, Sam. It's now obviouse I have an angle-keeper problem. Good stuff, pal. Thanks.

M

[goshawk823]

Hi David- sorry for the late reply. If I recall correctly, the OTW Type XXIII COG was about centered under the tower, so about 50%. That was using Bob's compressor based dive cylinder, so the free flood area was in the center.
I had no porpoising issues with that model. It drove great on the surface and underwater. It wasn't completely hands off though.
My only screw up was not using better linkages to the rear dive planes; when going in reverse, the force of the water actually pushed the planes in a more exaggerated position. **** poor planning on my part. The linkage needed to be braced/tunneled better to avoid the linkage rod bending to an obscene angle.
I free floated the stern planes off an angle keeper, and drove the front planes off a servo. Hope that helps some!
Sam

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

I did more than that, I swung a card-board profile model around, over my head on a string made up to the 60% point. It was stable. But, not the actual model, not in pitch. I'm beginning to think I have an angle-keeper problem.

Jump in anytime, John. More heads are better than two. Good stuff.

M

[Slats]

Sam,

At what point along the length of the Type-23 hull did you place your center-of-gravity? After three weeks of dicking around with this 1/35 Bronco Type-23 I still porpoise all over the place! I've moved the c.g. from the 50% point to nearly the 60% point with no joy. You're a long time 1/32 Type-23 driver. Tell me about how well the boat handles underwater; how well it can maintain periscope depth? Is it hands-off or do you have to fight the damned thing every second underwater?

Help me Oby-Wan, you're my only hope! (I hope I'm having an angle-keeper problem and this situation is not design related).

M

Whilst not directly addressed to me - I have to ask: David, did you bother to grid the boat's profile, count the squares and find the COG, or was your 50% along -chuck it here approach-, a case of using the force? :wink:

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Sam,

At what point along the length of the Type-23 hull did you place your center-of-gravity? After three weeks of dicking around with this 1/35 Bronco Type-23 I still porpoise all over the place! I've moved the c.g. from the 50% point to nearly the 60% point with no joy. You're a long time 1/32 Type-23 driver. Tell me about how well the boat handles underwater; how well it can maintain periscope depth? Is it hands-off or do you have to fight the damned thing every second underwater?

Help me Oby-Wan, you're my only hope! (I hope I'm having an angle-keeper problem and this situation is not design related).

M

[goshawk823]

understood David! you don't even have to caption them. lol.
-sam

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

[Kazzer]

That's a bit harsh!

Ha! It's better than the floggings and beatings I had in mind!

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

(I work for a screaming maniac!)

M

[Subculture]

That's a bit harsh!

[Kazzer]

Re: PMs and such. Looks like HWSNBN has turned off the PM option and has the system send him e-mail instead. I can't see what e-mail address he's chosen to see if there's a buried issue, such as a typo.

The e-mail option doesn't save sent mail.

There is an option box to save sent PMs, but this only works with PMs, not with e-mail.

I turned off his PM function because the w a n k e r never looked at them.

[greenman407]

Beautiful work Dave.Keep em coming there Sir!

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Got it, Steve. Thanks.

M

[Warpatroller]

Re: PMs and such. Looks like HWSNBN has turned off the PM option and has the system send him e-mail instead. I can't see what e-mail address he's chosen to see if there's a buried issue, such as a typo.

The e-mail option doesn't save sent mail.

There is an option box to save sent PMs, but this only works with PMs, not with e-mail.

I sent another email. This time I made sure I clicked on HWSNBN on a forum post and selected "send email". I then got a mail dialog box with this heading:

Send Message
Send a message via Email to He Who Shall Not Be Named



Hopefully it went through properly this time. If I recall correctly, I did the same thing when I sent my first email to him. I was assuming anything sent this way was technically a "PM". Today I found where you can initiate a PM, and that brings up a different dialog box (which explains why there was no message in my sent folder after sending the email).

Steve