wow!!! I want one.

Have a look at this!:

The really big one

I want a single hander, with a lounge room, and a pool table and a...

 

that makes two

 

Suhweet!!

 

Very nice!
The budget looks a little low though at 78M$ considering the cost of a 65m surface yacht.
I bet the MCA have not regulated it yet either!

PAul

 

Maybe it's like a kit-home - you buy the bare shell & fit her out yourself!

 

wow! there is more!

Go to the home page, they have some fantastic designs. The little six-seater is a do-it-yourself trailerable.

 

I think the old saying, "If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" applies quite well here.

Our perchant to excess continues to amaze me.

Regards,

Joe

 

If you dribble spit on you lap you shouldn't ask the price . . .

 

The missus says - "wheres the pool?"

You'd think Greg Norman woulda bought one a them instead of Aussie rules for that sorta spare change!

Cheers!

 

nah, Iv'e changed my mind

I think I will do without the pool table, and go for the small biplane. I need to commute to work a lot.

Maybe microsoft's boss could do with one too, he will need to get across to Russia get that new virus maker.

I am convinced that being on the surface of this planet is very unsafe. What with the terrorists and the pirates and all. This is the future of personal travel. Mark my words.

 

I have already reserved my place in the december group

At last count, there are 2,446 registered members of this forum, at an eminently negotiable $78,000,000, that equates to $31,888.90 AU, per member. Ya see!, it's not a lot.

BDRISI (The boat design recreational investment syndicate incorporated) is too large to all fit in at the same time, so I propose that we split up into 12 groups that get exclusive access for one month per year. That is 203.8333 people per month - plenty of room. We will get a helicopter instead.

I humbly submit myself to be the treasurer.

 

hmmmmmm... this vessel bears an uncanny resemblance to a German Type XXI class U-boat.

Blohm & Voss built a few... hundred; it was a great design THEN.

We know what happened to most of the German rocketboys, but I always wondered what happened to their submarine designers after the war.

Guess we know now...

 

Say........ If this thing is ocean going, could you just dive under bad storms?

And I wonder about the nuclear upgrade?

Dionysis, the biplane comment made me LMAO. That was a good one.

 

There's an alternative technology to nuclear or batteries - closed cycle internal combustion. I believe the technology was developed by the Italians.

The pressure hull is made of doughnut-shaped tubes instead of solid plating, welded side-by-side. The tubes are filled with oxygen at high pressure. So instead of being under compression, the metal is actually in loaded tension - more tension on the inside surface than the outside, of course - but up to a certain depth the stress would actually be less than on the surface.

The oxygen is used to run diesel engines when submerged. The exhaust gasses are compressed and stored back in the tubes. When the sub surfaces, the exhaust is purged and the tubes charged with fresh oxygen. This makes for better speed and endurance underwater than can be achieved with batteries, and you don't have the hazardous gasses, etc. given off by lead-acid batteries.

The weight can be built into the hull structure where it adds strength instead of carrying around boxes of lead plates. Needless to say, there's also a generous supply of oxygen for the crew should they need it.

It's a good way to build small - to - moderate sized subs, like the luxury models.

Now combine that with the underwater glider concept, and you have a vessel that can efficiently travel long distances with little fuel and stay down a long time. A glider would only need to produce auxilliary power for electricity, etc., and let gravity do the propulsion. By traveling under the water, it would be away from the wave action at the surface and provide a smooth ride.

 

nifty idea

Tom, is the glider concept something like the following?:

You are at the surface, put your propeller in gear but at reduced thrust, lose bouyancy at the same time, and so glide towards the bottom at the design glide angle, and when you get down to the bottom, you evacuate your tanks, glide to the surface or thereabouts, then repeat the whole sequence again as you like.

What a nifty idea! I bet the lateral planes are large. I wonder about skin friction though.