21 July 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
The following report is our DPV project that we have worked on starting January 9, 2000. In it contains our results and conclusions, as well as our processes, data, calculations, and contacts. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Amy Brewer [email protected]
Tauri Powell [email protected]
Eva Weissman [email protected]
SURFACE DPV
Project Proposal
OCE 4912: Summer Marine Field Projects
Submitted to: Dr. A. Zbrowski
July 21, 2000
Project team members: Amy Brewer
Tauri Powell
Eva Weissman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Front Matter
1.1 Letter of Transmit 1
1.2 Title Page 2
1.3 Table of Contents 3
1.4 Executive Summery 5
2.0 Body of Report
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Procedures 6
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Concept 12
2.3.2 Hull 12
2.3.3 Steering 13
2.3.4 Diving / Surfacing 14
2.3.5 Propulsion 15
2.3.6 Weight Distribution 17
2.3.7 Model 17
2.4 Discussion 19
2.5 Conclusions 20
2.6 Recommendations 20
3.0 References 21
4.0 Appendices
Figure 1: Hydrospeeder Specifications 22
Figure 2: Hydrospeeder 23
Figure 3: Concpet Design 24
Figure 4: Original Hull Concept 24
Table 1: Table of Offsets for Original Hull 25
Figure 5: Modified Hull 25
Figure 6: Bottom View of Hull 26
Figure 7: Full Hull Line Drawing 26
Figure 8: Inside View of Hull 27
Figure 9: Inside View of Solid Hull 28
Table 2: Table of Offsets for Modified Hull 28
Figure 10: Lines Plan of Top of Hull 29
Figure 11: Front View of Lines Plan 29
Figure 12: Side View of Lines Plan 30
Figure 13: Tilted View of Lines Plan 30
Figure 14: Steering 31
Figure 15: Diving/Surfacing System 31
1.4 Executive Summery
The project proposes to develop a one-person planing craft that is also capable of operating sub-surface. The practical purpose of this vehicle is to carry a diver quickly to a dive site without wasting time, air and energy. Once at the site, the craft will also be safe and maneuverable underwater to increase exploration range and reduce fatigue. This product is also marketable because of the fun and innovation of a surface-running submersible recreational vehicle.
The project team has decided to design a new hull, instead of using the old "Seal-Sub" design. Due to time constraints, the summer project was modified to designing and building a 1/3 scale, working model of the DPV. All theoretical systems for the full sized DPV will also be calculated and included in this report.
2.1 Introduction
The original task was to design and/or modify a personal diving vehicle capable of performing both above and below water surface. The initial constraint was lack of information. There was a vehicle resembling a jetski, but no information about its design, construction, or systems. With a lot of luck (see section 2.2 procedures), the team located members of the original group, who were kind enough to provide information about the craft. With this information, the information quest began. The Internet was used extensively to help find people, websites, and information that would be able to contribute to our project.
This report will cover what we have accomplished during the entire scope of the project, spring 2000 and summer 2000 semesters, as well as the processes to achieve these results.
2.2 Procedure (Methods)
The first step of this project was to try to amass any information possible. As priorly stated, the project began with no background information whatsoever. Dr. Andrew Zbrowski provided the email address for a former student who originally worked on the project, Aaron Gelfand. Mr. Gelfand was kind enough to supply his group's initial proposal. From this, the team was able to better assess the current situation of the DPV.
The "Seal-Sub" had originally been designed to be a smaller craft. The first hull was built before the engine was donated from SeaDoo. When SeaDoo eventually donated the engine, the group discovered that it was one of the largest models, and would not fit in the hull that they had built. Therefore, they were forced to redesign the hull, and build a larger version of it. However, all the numbers in the proposal reflected the first hull, so the current DPV team was only able to get a rough idea of the specifications on the DPV. On the other hand, the concepts and ideas remained the same, so one could see the intent of the design and systems.
On January 18, 2000, the DPV team had a meeting with Dr. Grame Rae (the original project advisor) and Dr. Wood. Dr. Rae provided a more realistic view of how much work would have to go into the project. It was concluded at this point that the project would be an ambitious one and might not be finished during the allotted time of the senior design project.
Between looking at the old proposal, looking at the "Seal-Sub" itself, and speaking with Dr. Rae, the team developed a list of design criteria, as follows:
1. Cost
2. Feasibility
3. Ease of operation & maintenance
4. Safety
5. Weight
6. Reliability
7. Durability
8. Acceptance
9. Appearance
10. Noise
Cost was placed as number one because of the limited budget. Also from the list of materials from the "Seal-Sub" report, it was obvious that most of the materials would have to be donated. Feasibility was number two because the goal was to create a design that could actually finish during the term. Ease of operation and maintenance was number three because, ideally, this would be marketed to the general public. Therefore, the product would have to be simple enough for anyone to get on, turn a key, and go. Safety was the next criteria. In designing a sub-surface diving vehicle, one must be very aware of the risks of safety, especially during testing, if the craft happened to dive and could not return to the surface. Next was weight. The rough weight of the "Seal-Sub" was 719 lbs. Going back to the idea that this would ideally be marketed to the public, the new design was to be light enough to fit on a trailer or the back of a truck, and for two people to comfortably lift it. Reliability and durability went along with safety, to the effect that due to the hazardous nature of this project in its testing stages, the team wanted to ensure that all parts would endure the testing process without damage or wear and tear. Finally, acceptance, appearance, and noise were not a major concern.
During the first month of the project (January 2000), the search for information and materials for the DPV presented the following alternatives:
1. Keep the existing jet ski-style craft intact and improve the existing systems. The scope of this alternative includes connecting the Seadoo engine and installing an electric engine for submersible propulsion. It also includes improving steering, planing, diving and surfacing capabilities.
Pros: The craft already exists, contains a large engine, and supposedly floats. Cons: The existing vehicle is extremely heavy and bulky. The information and hull data available on it are old and the current team is not familiar with the original plan for the existing pieces. The existing ballast section of the hull is poorly designed making it difficult to evacuate stored water.
2. Salvage the lower hull and remove the fiberglass upper structure. The scope of this alternative includes redesigning the ballast tank, pressurized engine compartment, seat, and steering system. An electric motor is still necessary and steering, diving and surfacing capabilities still need improvement.
Pros: Using the outside hull would be easier than designing and fabricating another one. The Sea-Doo engine could still be used and the team would not have to start from scratch.
Cons: The craft would remain excessively heavy and with most of the same problems.
3. Create a new prototype similar to an underwater motorcycle. The design includes an electric propulsion system for both surface and submerged power. The craft surfaces using semi-rigid inflatable bladders and planes on these bladders in addition to wing-like appendages. This idea is based on the Hydrospeeder (see appendices, figures 1, 2) and would be most successful with the donation or purchase of a Hydrospeeder hull.
Pros: This plan eliminates some of the old problems and reduces underwater drag. It also allows the team to start with an existing and successful underwater DPV and concentrate on a few smaller design problems.
Cons: Without a donation from Hydrospeeder the team would have to start from scratch or invest most/all of our budget in buying/building a hull. Floating, planing, and re-submerging the Hydrospeeder presents a difficult design problem.
Originally option three was the best idea. However, after three weeks of waiting for Hydrospeeder to approve the donation, the team decided that designing the rest of the project would better spend the time. At this point, they decided to take the main idea of the "Seal - Sub" and modify it.
Towards the end of February 2000, Dr. Steven Wood was successful in finding the molds to the old "Seal-Sub". Another option was then added to the list above: modify the molds to create a new hull, but do not completely start from scratch. This would obviously save time and money on trying to design and build new molds. Therefore the team began to take measurements on the old molds and decide on the best way to modify them.
The team decided to use both AutoCAD and ProEngineer in our modification process. AutoCAD was used to create the concept ideas for the new design, while ProEngineer was used to design the new hulls. After about a month of trying to learn ProEngineer, and getting no where, the team made the decision to continue the design process using AutoShip, a program that Amy Brewer was already familiar with. Redesigning the bottom of the hull and creating a new table of offsets using AutoShip took approximately three days.
At this point, the end of the Spring 2000 semester was drawing near, and the team decided that, due to time constraints, it would be better to build a workable model of the DPV in 1/3 scale. That was the final decision of the semester. Afterwards, the group took a month off to concentrate on final exams, the MFP Cruise, and the subsequent MFP Cruise Report.
When the group came back to the project, they were firmly committed to the idea of a model in 1/3 scale. The first order of business was to create a new timeline , as seen below:
Start Date End Date Task
1-Jun-00 13-Jul-00 Formal Report
Update WebPages
1-Jun-00 5-Jun-00 Materials List
Materials Purchasing
3-Jun-00 11-Jun-00 Propulsion and Weight
Distribution Calculations
6-Jun-00 11-Jun-00 Build Frame
11-Jun-00 14-Jun-00 Cover Frame
15-Jun-00 22-Jun-00 Fiberglass
22-Jun-00 2-Jul-00 Systems Design
Waterproofing
2-Jul-00 13-Jul-00 Testing
13-Jul-00 13-Jul-00 Presentation
The new materials list read as follows:
· Balsa sheeting
· Balsa strips
· Foam Board
· Masking Tape
· Poster Board
· Super Glue
· Fiberglass
· Resin
· Sandpaper
· Boat Paint
· Servos
· Speed Control
· Battery/Power Pack
· Transmitter/ Receiver
· Motor/Propeller
· Assorted brushes, buckets, and gloves
The team was lucky enough to have some of the materials donated. All fiberglass came from Structural Composites, Inc. while Jules Waters donated the systems for the model (transmitter/receiver, speed control, motor, etc.). The team continued on schedule until the fiberglassing section. Due to the team's inexperience of fiberglass, the process took twice as long as expected. Also, there were numerous problems with waterproofing the systems.
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Concept
After studying the old "Seal-Sub" and its specifications, the team decided to design a new hull with totally different specifications. They chose a tapered submarine shape (see figure 3) with the following requirements:
Item Specification
Length 6 ft
Beam 2 ft
Draft 10 in = 0.83 ft
2.3.2 Hull
The new hull design was based on several criteria. The vessel required a flat transom and a shape that minimized resistance below the surface as well as above it. It was also necessary to minimize the total weight by keeping the overall dimensions as small as possible. Considering the dimensions of an average sized person, the length over all was selected at seven feet, with a maximum beam of six feet and draft of ten inches.
The next step in the design process was to select a lines plan. The plan in Figure 4 came from a handout in a previous class and provided a base for the new hull design. A table of offsets (Table 1) was measured from this plan as a reference and was adapted to the selected dimensions. AutoShip was then used to develop a similar hull that is shown in Figure 5 through Figure 9 display different views of the hull design from the keel to the water line. AutoShip calculated a new table of offsets for this plan, which is not included here because it is very extensive. A sample of the data is included in Table 2.
AutoShip was also used to perform some hydrostatic calculations. To approximate the weight of the hull, magnesium was selected from the program data because it has a specific gravity of 1.8. This value is similar to the specific gravity of fiberglass with a medium glass content and the best approximation of the actual hull material. Assuming that the hull and transom are made of .75 in thick material, the total weight is 114.8 lbs. This weight is a base estimate excluding the stringers, the top portion of the vessel, the motor and other systems. The centroid was calculated at a position .3644 ft aft of midships and .3612 ft above the keel. The hull calculations also produced a wetted surface area of 16.3 ft2 and a water plane area of 4.5 ft2.
Once the top of the DPV was designed and attached to the preexisting bottom (see figures 10 thorough 13), a new set of data introduced itself.
Weight (empty) 242.6 lb.
Length 6.2 ft.
Beam 2 ft.
Draft 10 in = 0.83 ft.
Immersed Volume 3.9 ft.3
Wetted Surface Area 30.6 ft.2
2.3.3 Steering
The system will be steered by the use of a typical handlebar configuration (see figure 14). Toward the bottom of the steering column, a disc with a diameter of approximately 7" will protrude around the column. This disc will have a groove around it to guide the steering wire and a pin fixed to the front. This pin will also be fixed to the wire. The wire will go from the left side of the propeller system, around the right side of the disc, to the pin, around the left side of the disc, and to the right side of the propeller system. The disc extends the pull the steering column will have on the wire, thus giving the watercraft a sort of "power steering." When the handlebars are turned to the right, the pin will also move to the right, pulling the wire clockwise and the right side of the propeller system closer to the hull. This new angle will force the watercraft into a turn.
2.3.4 Diving / Surfacing
In front of the diver, there will be a handle that can only move in the vertical direction (see figure 15). This handle will be on a bar that continues a large distance into the interior of the hull. The bar will pivot where it enters the hull. There will be a wire attached to the top of the propeller casing. It will then run through a series of blocks to attach to the bar from above. Another wire will run from the bottom of the propeller shaft, through a series of blocks, to attach to the end of the bar from the bottom. When the handle is moved upwards, the bar will pull the wires down, thus causing the top of the propeller casing to move closer to the hull. This angle will force the stern of the watercraft down. It will therefore cause the nose of the watercraft up, and the watercraft will surface. If the handle is moved down, the bar will pull the wires up, and the watercraft will dive.
The watercraft will always be operated with the propeller angled slightly downward. This is to compensate for the fact that it will be slightly positively buoyant. With this feature, the watercraft will slowly rise to the surface if a problem should occur and the propeller stops. The handle that controls the ascent and descent will also be limited so that the diver cannot cause the watercraft to surface or dive too quickly.
The diver will also have other controls that will be used to dive and surface. These controls will have power over the amount of water or air within the watercraft. When the diver wants to dive, he/she will pull two controls to open two valves on the bottom and two valves on the top. The valves on the bottom will allow water to enter while the valves on the top will allow air to exit. The control will be spring operated, so as soon as the diver releases the control, the valves will all close. The diver will have to allow the tank to fill completely with water before the watercraft will be able to dive. The diver must then move the propeller control to dive and start on a slow descent. While underwater, the diver will be able to control vertical direction by controlling the angle of the propeller. Since the watercraft will only be slightly positively buoyant, the buoyancy will not have to be adjusted. However, the diver will have to ensure that he/she remains neutrally buoyant. To begin to ascend the diver will have to only move the DIVE/SURFACE control to surface. In case there is still air in the tank, the diver can open the valves on the top of the hull to allow air to escape. As the diver surfaces, he/she will turn another valve to allow air to fill the ballast tank. The air escape valve will automatically function as a one-way valve similar to a regulator. Once the pressure in the tank reaches a certain magnitude, air will begin to escape through the top of the hull. The diver will then know that is time to open the valves on the bottom of the hull. The air pressure will force the water out of the bottom of the hull. When air bubbles rise up from under the watercraft, the tank will be empty and the diver can then close the valves on the bottom and stop adding air to the tank.
2.3.5 Propulsion
The horsepower needed was designed to allow the watercraft to go 8 knots underwater. The watercraft will not be run at this high speed underwater, but this amount of power will allow it to travel over 8 knots on the surface. In order to travel at this speed, a motor of approximately 2 horsepower is needed. This is equal to approximately 300 lbf or 130 kgf.
The required horsepower for the vehicle underwater was calculated as follows:
Assume the following parameters (note that parameters are exaggerated to allow for safety margin):
LOA = 6.5 ft
B = 2 ft
cB = 0.8
Ttotal = 1.66 ft
v = 8 kt = 13.5 ft/s
Calculate the displaced volume, Ñ:
Ñ = cBLBT = 0.8(6.5 ft)(2 ft)(1.66 ft) = 17.26 ft3
Using this volume, calculate cp and then cs:
cs = 1.03cp2/3 = 1.03(1.11)2/3 = 1.1
Next, calculate SBH and SAP:
SBH = cspBL = 1.1(p)(2 ft)(6.5 ft) = 44.9 ft2
SAP = 0.25SBH = 11.2 ft2
Finally, ST = SBH + SAP = 56.13 ft2
Calculate the Reynolds number:
Calculate: 3.21x10-3
Next, find
Calculate
Finally, calculate the estimated underwater resistance:
R = ½r v2ST = 0.5(1.9905)(7.17x10-3)(13.5ft/s)2(56.13 ft2) = 73.0 lbs
Find the estimated horsepower:
hp
Bow thrusters are sold in the size of 130 kgf and would adequately meet our needs. A large electric motor or a combination of two trolling motors would also work. The size of the propeller will be 7" and will be housed in a protective casing. The entire propeller system, the propeller and the casing, will protrude out the back of the watercraft. The entire system will be able to move up and down, and side to side.
The motor will be powered by a battery supply. This supply will be able to be charged between dives, while the watercraft is not in use. In order to charge the batteries, a covered outlet will be located on the outside of the hull. This outlet will be wired to a converter, and in turn, to the batteries. A typical shore power system or a cord from a larger vessel could then be used to easily recharge the battery.
2.3.6 Weight Distribution
The need for a stable vessel is always a major concern, and the team took this into account. Using some basic calculations, they were able to calculate the theoretical locations of both the motor and the batteries in order to achieve stability. The motor, at 120 lbs., will be placed 2.12 ft. aft of the center of the vessel. The two batteries, with a combined weight of 130 lbs., will be placed 1.30 ft. forward of center.
2.3.7 Model
Using Froude's Law of Similitude and the specifications for the full size DPV, the team could calculate the specifications needed for the model. Assume l= 3 :
Length : Lm = Ls / 3
= 6.2 / 3 = 2.06 ft. = 25 in
Surface Area:
Sm / Ss = 1 / l2
Ss = 9 Sm
Sm = Ss / 9
= 30.6 / 9 = 3.4 f2
Velocity:
Vm2 / Vs2 = 1/3
3Vm2 = Vs2
Vm2 = Vs2 / 3
Vm = (Vs2 / 3) ½
Volume:
"m / "s = 1/27
27 "m = "s
"m = "s / 27
Displacement:
rm"m / rs"s = Dm / Ds
rm"m "s = rsDm "s
Dm = rm"m "s / rs "s
The rest of the model specifications for the model are as follows:
Weight 9 lbs.
Length 25 in.
Beam 8 in.
Draft 3.3 in.
Immersed Volume 1.3 ft3
Wetted Surface Area 3.4 ft.2
On July 12, 2000 , the team tested the model for the first time .The results were positive. Not only did the model float, but also righted itself from every angel except upside-down. The only problem was that it took a lot of force to make the model go underwater.
On July 20, 2000, the team tested the model with the systems inside. Once again, the model floated excellently. There was minimal leakage from the hole where the motor shaft is.
Also, the team kept a webpage up-to-date on their progress. Additional photos of the project can be seen on that page :
http:// www.geocities.com/dolphin91079/pg4.html
2.4 Discussion
The group encountered numerous problems during the scope of this project. First was the time constraint applied by the initial use of ProEngineer. Changing the scope of the project from a full size DPV to a 1/3 scale model of the same solved this problem. This problem could have been avoided by having a smaller final objective and also to use software packages that the group was already familiar with.
The next problem encountered was the fiberglassing. This was the team's first major experience with fiberglass. Due to their inexperience, the process took much longer than expected. Also due to the shape of the hull, the fiberglass had difficulties bonding. Making a female mold of the model, and then using a light plastic to create the hull could have avoided this problem. Not only would it have been faster, but the end result would have been smoother and more accurate to the shape of the original lines plan.
Another problem with the fiberglass was the amount of time and effort that it took to sand the model down, and the unevenness that it left. The group spent almost a week sanding and filling the holes with putty in order to smooth the model out, then repeating the process. Again this could have been avoided by using the female mold.
Finally, the systems for the model created great difficulties. The setup was not difficult, however waterproofing the systems proved to be a challenge. The group ended up using a simple method of plastic bags and silicon rubber sealant. This was not the most effective method, since there was still a very small leakage, but the systems still worked and leakage was considered nominal.
2.5 Conclusion
In conclusion, the group was able to produce a 1/3 scale model of the DPV that was architecturally sound. Although there were numerous time constraints due to the team's inexperience with the material and processes, a lot was learned over the scope of the project.
Also, some theoretical systems were designed for the full scale DPV. However, these could not be implemented into the model the way they were designed to feasablitlity constraints with servos. For example, the full size DPV has a steering handlebar that the diver would turn left or right. Since there is no diver on the model, the servos were ideally used to move the propeller up, down, left, and right. However, to keep the project simple and in order to complete it on time, the team decided just to design the systems so that the model would go straight.
Finally, since it takes a lot of force to sink the model, the team concluded that the hull for the full size DPV should only be 0.25 in thick, instead of the 0.75 in. originally specified. Also, a lighter material, perhaps a high-tech, durable plastic, should be applied instead of fiberglass.
2.6 Recommendations
There are two main recommendations for future groups. The first is to continue the project either with the full scale DPV or the model, but not both. By choosing one and continually working on that specific scale, it would save a lot of time and energy in the long run. The current team realized too late that they would not be able to complete the DPV and therefore had to begin work on the smaller scale model. However, due to the time already invested in the DPV, the model was not as intricate as planed.
The second recommendation is to focus on a smaller objective. For example, designing the dive/surfacing/ballast systems for the full size DPV would be an appropriate task that would span all requirements for a marine field project. It would allow a group to concentrate on one small area, instead of a huge overwhelming project.
3. References
People
Name Contact Point Association
Charles Cousin [email protected] Former Project Member
Rodney Davis [email protected] Hydrospeeder
Aaron Gelfand [email protected] Former Project Member
Chiquinquira Gonzalez [email protected] Former Project Member
Dr. Graeme Rae [email protected] Florida Atlantic Professor
Dr. Steven Wood [email protected] Florida Tech Professor
Tom Hesselink www.budsin.com/ Budsin Woodcraft Electric Boats
Ira Weissman Family of Team Member
Jules Waters Personal Friend
Websites
Gaz Cooper's Dive Belize www.divebelize.com/divebelize/hydro.html
Hydrospeeder www.hydrospeeder.com
SeaDoo www.seadoo.com
www.bombardier.com
Maxx Stealth www.amaverickent.com/
Torpedo www.torpedodpv.com/
Farallon DPV USA www.farallonusa.com/
Ray Electric Outboards www.electricoutboards.com/
Lynch Motors www.lynchmotor.com/
Brimbelow Engineering (motors) www.e-drive.co.uk/
Duffy Boats www.duffyboats.com/
Electra Craft www.electracraft.com/
Elco www.mhv.net/~elco/
Budsin Woodcraft Electric Boats www.budsin.com/
4. Appendixes
Figure 1: Hydrospeeder Specifications
Total Weight (includes fuel tank and batteries).... 270 lbs.
Empty Weight.............................................. 135 lbs.
Length......................................................... 82 inch.
Height.......................................................... 18 inch.
Width.......................................................... 50 inch.
Top Speed.................................................. 6 Knots
Burn Time.................................................... 1 Hours
Total Thrust................................................. 180 lbs.
Power Supply.............................................. Lead Acid Dry Cells
Operating Voltage........................................ 36 Volts
System Pressure.......................................... 5 psi
Buoyancy Control........................................ Integrated Air Bladder
Maximum Depth Rating................................ 100 ft.
Frame Construction..................................... Powder Coated Aircraft Aluminum
Figure 2 : Hydrospeeder
Figure 3 : Concept Design
Figure 4: Original Hull Concept
Table 1 : Table of Offsets for Original Hull Concept
(measurements in ft.)
Station # Y z y z y z y z y z y z
0 1.05 0.00 1.77 0.15 2.38 0.42 2.45 0.47
1 0.20 0.00 0.40 0.19 1.16 0.65 1.77 1.01 2.12 1.25 2.45 1.50
2 0.05 0.00 0.40 0.57 1.13 1.20 1.32 1.35 1.85 1.72 2.45 2.22
3 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.68 0.77 1.35 1.09 1.64 1.60 2.10 2.45 2.66
4 0.00 0.00 0.40 1.09 0.56 1.35 1.01 1.98 1.41 2.35 2.45 2.85
5 0.00 0.00 0.47 1.36 0.79 1.35 0.92 2.22 1.26 2.52 2.45 2.91
6 0.00 0.00 0.80 2.35 1.12 2.68 1.77 2.83 2.45 2.95
7 0.02 0.00 0.73 2.38 1.03 2.68 1.77 2.83 2.45 2.88
8 0.07 0.00 0.70 2.39 0.96 2.66 1.77 2.78 2.45 2.78
9 0.09 0.00 0.65 2.40 0.88 2.65 1.77 2.71 2.45 2.65
10 0.14 0.00 0.60 2.38 0.87 2.65 1.77 2.67 2.45 2.53
Figure 5 : Modified Hull
Figure 6 : Bottom View of Hull
Figure 7 : Full Hull Line Drawing
Figure 8 : Inside View of Hull
Figure 9: Inside View of Solid Hull
Table 2 : Table of Offsets for Modified Hull
Station # X y z y z y z y z y z y z
0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.05 0.81 0.14 0.83 0.16
1 0.6 0.20 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.39 0.22 0.60 0.35 0.72 0.43 0.83 0.52
2 1.2 0.41 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.46 0.63 0.59 0.83 0.76
3 1.8 0.61 0.21 0.10 0.23 0.26 0.46 0.37 0.56 0.54 0.72 0.83 0.91
4 2.4 0.82 0.28 0.14 0.37 0.19 0.46 0.34 0.68 0.48 0.81 0.83 0.98
5 3.0 1.02 0.35 0.16 0.47 0.27 0.46 0.31 0.76 0.43 0.87 0.83 1.00
6 3.6 1.22 0.42 0.27 0.81 0.38 0.92 0.60 0.97 0.83 1.01
7 4.2 1.43 0.49 0.25 0.82 0.35 0.92 0.60 0.97 0.83 0.99
8 4.8 1.63 0.56 0.24 0.82 0.33 0.91 0.60 0.96 0.83 0.96
9 5.4 1.84 0.63 0.22 0.82 0.30 0.91 0.60 0.93 0.83 0.91
10 6.0 2.04 0.70 0.20 0.82 0.30 0.91 0.60 0.92 0.83 0.87
Figure 10: Lines Plan of Top of Hull
Figure 11: Front View of Lines Plans
Figure 12: Side View of Lines Plans
Figure 13: Tilted View of Lines Plans
Figure 14 : Steering
Figure 15 : Diving/ Surfacing System