Bulkheads - Compartment Flooding

I had a thought - what if one were to compartmentalize the whole ship, similar to the "Titanic", meaning, one would build water tight compartments in the ship up to some point, say a bit under the deck. Then, using water sensors, have them interupt the "device" that is located there. For instance, the compartment with the forward guns - if it receives hits and floods, and the sensor reads water, it would shut off the cannon (somehow - like the firing servo for it for instance) or if it hit one of the port engine compartments, it would cut that motor out. Simulate damage so to speak...floats could be used for automatic list control or funnel the water to the pump compartment sort of thing...I'm sure there are lots of variations, but some basic rules might make things easier to control. Might be tough, but most components in this age are lighter and smaller than yesterday.
Thomas
Quote:
"In addition, water and flood sensors can also be integrated with a valve control unit that shuts off a given water line when prompted." (That could be used to shut off motors I'm thinking.)
http://www.homesecuritystore.com/c-...nsors.aspx

 

I think the question is: Why?

Really no reason to make things so complicated.

 

Just throwing ideas out there - most ships and systems seem like they are quite modularised: you know already how much space you need for what. And after all - is this not this "Research and Development" section for that? Wild ideas? Innovation and experimentation has brought the hobby to this level right? And there are allowances for "List Control" in several of the main rules systems...just adding to that thought. Now add a little red light (LED) on the ship in the area that is "damaged" and soon vessels dont need to sink in order for them to be taken out of commission. (dead in the water ships could be towed back by tugs...) And maybee a Bow Sinking instead of the all pervasive Stern Sinking be cool too.
I'm sure many of you have not heard, but Germany just developed a new material that is 4 times lighter than the lightest material on earth, called Aerographite. This will make batteries (amongst other things) amazingly light in the not too far future. Stuff like that is neat...electric cars will be much more economical and feasable. Henry Ford wanted an Electric Car too, instead of the combustion engine. Just immagine what the world be like if we had people who went with that idea? Or DC current instead of AC...ehh? A better mousetrap..? I think so. Look at the pictures of the first "freon" firing ships...think those peope thought of rotating cannons? Way too complex - but someone made it work.

 

Well said - thanks, I appreciate your candor and your restraint; you Sir, are a gentlemen and a scholar. Thanks again
I'll definately keep that in mind - then again, I was looking at the submarines: I dont know what they do, but my thought was that someone ought to mount one of those clippard cylinders with a very long extension in the subs...something at least 6-12 inches or so, somewhere within 1" below the surface. Then, when "ramming" or getting close to an enemy vessel, let the cylinder extend the rod and bunch a hole into the ship, and snap back into the submarine, with the air vented out into the sub or outside it (probably better outside it). Not certain if that is legal or not...
Thomas

 

Now theres something that needs some serious R&D put into it. Subs played such a vital role in both world wars (not just the atlantic german U-boats but in both major oceans involved) that for them to be excluded is a issue. Obviously they are not excluded by rules but rather by the ability to build them to such a small scale as 1/144th. I think the guys with the know how (not me because i am still very much a rookie in my first build) should start looking into making subs a bigger part. If successful you may open up the hobby to entirely new flow of new members. R/C Subs are very popular not to mention very cool.
as always just some rookie thoughts

 

I actually have some experience with compartmentalization and list control in combat ships. My club, after all, allows such things under certain situations, and I myself designed a listing device for use in a torpedo-boat. It turns out that compartmentalization in models, unlike in full-size ships, is a Bad Thing. Rather than helping the ship stay afloat, it actually exacerbates the difficulties of damage control. In full-size ships, the pumping capacity of the ship is extremely limited relative to the damage-dealing capability of the weapons directed at it. IE a hit will cause far more flooding than the pumps can handle. Further, it is easy to place lots of small pumps in each compartment, to easily deal with minor flooding where and when it occurs. Thus it makes more sense to divide the ship into many small compartments, so that losing any few of those compartments will not cause the entire ship to sink. In our models, the damage-dealing capacity is actually pretty well matched to the pumping capacity of the ship. What is limited is the number of pumps available. We cannot place a separate small pump in each compartment. It makes far more sense, in our models, to use one big centralized pump and a well-designed water channel to direct all flooding to that pump. My club does allow small boats and transports to have one or two watertight compartments, but we found out the hard way that the pump can only pump out one compartment. Any other compartments will freely flood at the first hit, even one above the water line if there's waves. The people who tried it soon removed their watertight bulkheads, and never looked back.

My club, the WWCC, also specifically allows the use of list-control devices. Not just powered stability-enhancing devices, but devices to deliberately induce a controllable list in a ship. It was originally authorized for an Iowa-class battleship to counter flooding, before we discovered water channeling. However it was soon adopted by a torpedo-armed heavy cruiser for offensive purposes. Apparently this particular ship met with great success, so I tested and contrived to put a list-control device in my brother's old light cruiser during its construction. In a bathtub test, I determined that it would take a 2lb chunk of lead moving up to 1.5" off the centerline to induce a useful amount of list. I designed a device robust enough to swing around that much lead in a controlled fashion. However it required a very expensive metal-geared high-torque servo to move 2lbs of lead, which I could not afford at the time. I scrapwood-binned the parts and installed more batteries and a good pump in their place, and always have been happy with the choice. List control can offer useful defense against long-range fire, but it is incredibly bulky gear. Even in a supposedly spacious ship like the Rodney or H-39, you'd be surprised how much space you need for basic hardware like radio, servos, and cannons. Torpedo-boat skippers learned to induce a temporary list with their rudders, and the issue hasn't come up for discussion since. All the early experimental ships have been retired for years. Improvements in damage control and the ever-shrinking size of torpedo-boats makes such devices unnecessary.

 

Photos, or it never happened
I've been sunk by a sub before. It was friendly fire, so I was not very happy about it, but it's always exciting whenever one comes out. Kotori and I have written topics about subs before, if you're willing to dig for them.

 

I do believe we may be getting closer to having the ability to have more scale subs in battle if ppl want to run them. Technology is getting smaller so hopefully in a few years we will have mor eof them....or not all depends if ppl want to build one.

 

I think the switch to 2.4 ghz radios may hinder subs a bit if the older frequencies move out of use.

 

You are right about that, the 2.4 GHz signal doesn't have the strength to penetrate the water to any depth. They are OK if you want an antenna sticking out of the water but it is hard to remain undettected like that.
J

 

Interesting - nver thought of that yet. I heard that those 2.4 GHz's you dont need to worry about radio frequencies and all that, is that the idea? A friend at work was talking about his bike: it has 2 radio antennae's on the back of his bike, and he said that one receives better signals that way. What does one do with the receivers antanae? Run it inside the ship? Not given much thought about RC gear up until now - and yup, pretty clueless about that also. Not uneducated, just little to no experience I mean. Might need anothr thread though. I'll start looking at the technical forums a bit to see whats been asked.
Cheers,
Thomas
Subs...that must be some hell of a complicated model, with the sinking and maintaining boyancy and all that.

 

2.4gHZ signal is in the upper limits of the UHF spectrum. UHF signals are essentially transmitted as a line of site type of signal. UHF is subject to tropospheric ducting (thermal layers) which bends the signal as it travels through a medium (water). In the Navy, we use the ELF to communicate with submarines when operating at normal depth. However for our purposes in the RC world a transmitter operating in the VLF frequency band (3 - 30 kHZ) would have no issues linking with a submarine.

 

Being entirely unfamiliar with the older frequencies, how do the size of the Rx units compare to the 2.4 ghz?

 

Generally similar. With the exception of a MUCH longer antenna that needs to make it out of the ship and away from the motors generally speaking.