For the last few months I thought I try experimenting a little and resurrect my RCABS project.
For those who don't know, I had a bad experience with RCABS a while back. It amounted to bummed out pump motor that gave temperamental power, which resulted in me wrongly condemning RCABS. I posted quite some time after, that with proper post examination, I had simply not done my homework.
So I'd thought I'd give this system another go.
I have to say that yes whilst it works, I am making a quick retreat away from the system.
Why?
First there is real estate. Using my almost complete Collins as a static test bed in my test tank, I have found that I need around 150% more air space to accommodate the bag inflation required to sit the boat at its surfaced scale water line.
Second the bag positioning (even tethered) seems to inconsistently shift position effecting trim.
Third, the additional air space required, alongside the basics of the WTC necessary gear and battery supply, prohibits additional nice features such as torpedoes
Fourth, the additional air space required means that I need loads more ballast to trim the boat down and keep her stable. The cost of course, almost like a dry hulled submarine, is the boat is much heavier and less maneuverable than I would like.
If you have a very large scale sub or a small sub that you're not to worried about additional features I am sure RCABS will work just fine.
To me it occupies too much real estate on board and has the potential for trim inconsistencies.
So I'll be back to gas and snort from here on in!
For those who don't know, I had a bad experience with RCABS a while back. It amounted to bummed out pump motor that gave temperamental power, which resulted in me wrongly condemning RCABS. I posted quite some time after, that with proper post examination, I had simply not done my homework.
So I'd thought I'd give this system another go.
I have to say that yes whilst it works, I am making a quick retreat away from the system.
Why?
First there is real estate. Using my almost complete Collins as a static test bed in my test tank, I have found that I need around 150% more air space to accommodate the bag inflation required to sit the boat at its surfaced scale water line.
Second the bag positioning (even tethered) seems to inconsistently shift position effecting trim.
Third, the additional air space required, alongside the basics of the WTC necessary gear and battery supply, prohibits additional nice features such as torpedoes
Fourth, the additional air space required means that I need loads more ballast to trim the boat down and keep her stable. The cost of course, almost like a dry hulled submarine, is the boat is much heavier and less maneuverable than I would like.
If you have a very large scale sub or a small sub that you're not to worried about additional features I am sure RCABS will work just fine.
To me it occupies too much real estate on board and has the potential for trim inconsistencies.
So I'll be back to gas and snort from here on in!
Comment