Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and expectations

Hello, and welcome to the forums at the Nautilus Drydocks, formerly Sub-driver.com!

We welcome anyone with a passion for submarines and a desire to learn and share knowledge about this fascinating hobby. Use of these forums indicates your intention to abide by our code of conduct:


1. No spam. All automated messages, advertisements, and links to competitor websites will be deleted immediately.

2. Please post in relevant sub-forums only. Messages posted in the wrong topic area will be removed and placed in the correct sub-forum by moderators.

3. Respect other users. No flaming or abusing fellow forum members. Users who continue to post inflammatory, abusive comments will be deleted from the forum after or without a warning.

4. No threats or harassment of other users will be tolerated. Any instance of threatening or harassing behavior is grounds for deletion from the forums.

5. No profanity or pornography is allowed. Posts containing adult material will be deleted.

6. No re-posting of copyrighted materials or other illegal content is allowed. Any posts containing illegal content or copyrighted materials will be deleted.
See more
See less

Proposal

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by trout View Post
    If you were to do a top 10 of your favorite subs to run, what would they be?
    Conversely, what are the top 10 of the worse subs to run?
    Best:

    1. 1/96 Thor STURGEON
    2. 1/96 D&E SKIPJACK
    3. 1/96 Thor THRESHER
    4. 1/72 STURGEON
    5. 24" Teskey FS-1
    6. 1/96 Copeland OHIO
    7. 1/100 OTW VANGUARD
    8. 1/12 ALLIGATOR
    9. 1/144 KILO
    10. 1/72 GATO

    Worst:

    1. 1/35 Type-23 (I'm doing something terribly wrong here)
    2. 1/144 SEWOLF (awful turning radius on the surface)
    3. 1/96 Thor LOS ANGELES (ugly)
    4. Moebius SEAVIEW (too slow)
    5. 1/72 Revell Type-7 (touchy in pitch)
    6. 33" Disney NAUTILUS (too slow)
    7. 1/72 ALFA (awful turning radius)
    8. 1/96 Type-212 (much too squirly)
    9. 1/16 KAIRYU (butt ugly!)
    10. 1/96 AKULA (awful turning radius)

    M
    "... well, that takes care of Jorgenson's theory!"

    Comment


    • #62
      David, you said you built your first RC Sub in the mid 80s. Was that after 1983?

      Iíve been researching 32nd Parallel some lately. I sort of have an obsession with that company..

      I was in contact, last month, with a guy in CA who had an early copy of their production vacform XXIII. He bought his XXIII kit in February 1984. He had an old 32P price list dated, November 1983, which had the XXIII on it.. Back then, in late 83, they only had two sub kits: VII and XXIII. VII used a water pump ballast system and debuted in 1981. The XXIII was gas, Freon gas, which is illegal to discharge into the atmosphere today..

      Did your early gas WTCs use Freon? Or CO2?
      I have been told some of those 32P 10-foot GATOs utilized CO2..

      In addition, they had the following four skimmer kits:
      VS-8 Hydrofoil
      Schnellboot (E-Boat)
      PC-497 Subchaser
      80í ELCO PT Boat

      Pressure boxes with hold down screws for lids, Pittman 12VDC motors (5620 RPM for subs and 9000 RPM for skimmers), Lead-Acid and Ni-Cad batteries, Vantec ESCs, and everything in 1/32 scale was the norm for the day..

      Shop set up by the beach, on the Pacific Ocean.. Must have been an interesting place..

      With you, near the beach, on the Atlantic Ocean, starting your own RC sub construction ventures..

      Steve


      "Worst: 1. 1/35 Type-23 (I'm doing something terribly wrong here)"
      Wow, Bronco XXIII made the #1 spot for most pure lemon.. That doesn't help market the fittings kit you made for it.. Tom, lost one at the SubRegatta this past summer.. Is that kit cursed or something? Maybe if you keep them in their boxes, like mine, they stay happy haha.
      "Wir kommen ihnen unbekannt."

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by He Who Shall Not Be Named View Post
        Best:

        1. 1/96 Thor STURGEON
        2. 1/96 D&E SKIPJACK
        3. 1/96 Thor THRESHER
        4. 1/72 STURGEON
        5. 24" Teskey FS-1
        6. 1/96 Copeland OHIO
        7. 1/100 OTW VANGUARD
        8. 1/12 ALLIGATOR
        9. 1/144 KILO
        10. 1/72 GATO

        M
        Can you post their good points?
        Make it simple, make strong, make it work!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Warpatroller View Post
          David, you said you built your first RC Sub in the mid 80s. Was that after 1983?

          Iíve been researching 32nd Parallel some lately. I sort of have an obsession with that company..

          I was in contact, last month, with a guy in CA who had an early copy of their production vacform XXIII. He bought his XXIII kit in February 1984. He had an old 32P price list dated, November 1983, which had the XXIII on it.. Back then, in late 83, they only had two sub kits: VII and XXIII. VII used a water pump ballast system and debuted in 1981. The XXIII was gas, Freon gas, which is illegal to discharge into the atmosphere today..

          Did your early gas WTCs use Freon? Or CO2?
          I have been told some of those 32P 10-foot GATOs utilized CO2..

          In addition, they had the following four skimmer kits:
          VS-8 Hydrofoil
          Schnellboot (E-Boat)
          PC-497 Subchaser
          80í ELCO PT Boat

          Pressure boxes with hold down screws for lids, Pittman 12VDC motors (5620 RPM for subs and 9000 RPM for skimmers), Lead-Acid and Ni-Cad batteries, Vantec ESCs, and everything in 1/32 scale was the norm for the day..

          Shop set up by the beach, on the Pacific Ocean.. Must have been an interesting place..

          With you, near the beach, on the Atlantic Ocean, starting your own RC sub construction ventures..

          Steve


          "Worst: 1. 1/35 Type-23 (I'm doing something terribly wrong here)"
          Wow, Bronco XXIII made the #1 spot for most pure lemon.. That doesn't help market the fittings kit you made for it.. Tom, lost one at the SubRegatta this past summer.. Is that kit cursed or something? Maybe if you keep them in their boxes, like mine, they stay happy haha.
          I was wrong as to the date of my first r/c submarine. It was shortly after I got out of the Navy, which was in 1988. Looking at the dates on the slides I took at the time, puts my first r/c submarine being built in the early 90's. I was building a lot of static display pieces in the mid-80's (plank-owner models for sub crews and defense clients), the source of my confusion no doubt.

          Simon and Sheila Smith were innovators and hard workers. Their vacuformed 1/32 Type-23 introduced many people to the r/c submarine world. For what it was, it was the door-opener to many who wanted to get into the game. Innovative stuff: vacuforming, resin casting, and the most rational gas type ballast sub-system produced at the time. Yes, Freon-12 was the liquid/gas of choice back then.

          The first WTC arrangement for the AKULA employed Freon to blow ballast water.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	PICT0035.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	85.7 KB
ID:	93155 Click image for larger version

Name:	PICT0037.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	84.0 KB
ID:	93156 The second WTC arrangement, which employed a single WTC box, made use of CO2, the medium-pressure gas reduced through a Williams regulator to a more manageable 40 psi.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	PICT0036.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	85.3 KB
ID:	93157 Click image for larger version

Name:	PICT0039.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	80.6 KB
ID:	93158 I also used CO2 gas to actuate the two vent-vent actuators, one in each of the two ballast tanks.

          We're about 15-miles from the ocean, but I get your point.

          Bronco has a fine kit. And when it was running right Steve's Type-23 was a beauty on and under the water. His sank (what a bummer!) because of a fault in the SAS ballast sub-system (likely a bum LPB whith a bald-spot on the commutator) I provided him -- not anything to do with the hull itself. My problem is not with the hull kit, it's something I'm doing wrong. I just don't know what it is: my r/c'ed Bronco Type-23 gets into an unaccounted for 'dive' at speed and I have yet to figured out why. Others have their Bronco Type-23 model working just fine -- above and below the surface. I'm doing something wrong here.

          M
          "... well, that takes care of Jorgenson's theory!"

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by redboat219 View Post
            Can you post their good points?
            The sweetest running r/c submarine on this planet is the 1/96 Thor STURGEON. Turns tight, is fast, and is easy to transport and maintain. Rock solid depth control, even without an active set of sail planes. Hands off operation. The perfect 'beginners' ride.

            Both the 1/96 and 1/72 SKIPACKS's turn on a dime, are scary fast, stable, and ... did I mention it yet ... FAST! And the best looking model at the lake!

            Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0091.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	93.3 KB
ID:	93159 Click image for larger version

Name:	000_0049.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	93.1 KB
ID:	93160 The 1/96 Thor THRESHER is a good turning boat, reasonably easy to control in depth, and reasonably fast. A very distinctive look if you stay with the original THRESHER and PERMIT look. The long-hull with the stretched sails look awful!

            The Manta Subs 1/72 STURGEON is another great runner -- and large enough to house all sorts of 'toys'.

            The Teskey 24" Flying-Submarine is a fun boat. Thrusters forward and astern can turn the boat about it's vertical axis when dead in the water. Turns like a pig if any way is on, but the boat is fast and assured about the pitch axis. Lots of fun, but a lot of pre and post mission tasks make this more than a casual-run-at-the lake toy. No... it does not fly! Idiot.

            Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0004.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	86.0 KB
ID:	93164 The Copeland 1/96 OHIO runs very well above and below the surface. And with the right motor, very fast too. Depth control is OK, but you are always fighting the suction created between surface and big flat missile-deck when trying to maintain periscope depth. Just like the real thing.

            The 1/100 OTW VANGUARD is a surprisingly well turning boat both submerged and surfaced. Not typical with boats employing a pump-jet. Depth control is excellent, and the big size makes for a very stately boat at the pool or lake. I love bow planes on a boomer.

            Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0089.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	93.0 KB
ID:	93161 Click image for larger version

Name:	DC9.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	94.0 KB
ID:	93162 Click image for larger version

Name:	DC1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	98.1 KB
ID:	93163 Though commissioned and used as a practical effects miniatures, the 1/12 ALLIGATOR was found to be surprisingly easy to control in depth -- and this without the aid of ANY horizontal control surfaces. Like the HUNLEY, if you distribute the weight well down and work in a high center-of-buoyancy, static stability will keep the boat on an even keel when under way -- just as long as you keep the the boat below the critical speed. Above that speed and hydrodynamic unsymmetrical forces become greater than the static stabilizing force and you loose depth-control. Turned well, and never flubbed a rehearsal run or take for lack of control. We were able to hit the mark on cue each time. Got all our shots in within two days -- filming was at various water bodies at the David Taylor facility. It can be seen on the Discovery Science Channel every now and then.

            The 1/144 Trumpeter KILO is SMALL! Easy to transport. And a very nice kit, I love that they make the upper and lower hull portions separate equatorially at the waterline. Neat! Turns pretty good underwater, a total pig on the surface. Depth control is a joy for such a small critter. Very easy to maintain.

            The excellent Revell 1/72 GATO kit assembles quickly and is a fast turning, quick diving, easy to control scale model submarine. And nothing looks more sexy on the surface pulling a flank bell than an American diesel boat! A head-turner too. I love this thing! Plenty of room for torpedo tubes.

            M
            "... well, that takes care of Jorgenson's theory!"

            Comment


            • #66
              I was wondering about how the Revell Type IX's preformance will be compaired to the Gato, since they are similar in displacement and size. The wide flat decks hydrodynamics, (upsidedown Bernuli principal) Wing develops lift on the curved side, conversly the sub serfice curved side dynamicly is directly preportional. Makes it go down. I think if I put all the lead balast in the type IXs keel, being below the bubble will add to stability. Also wondering about placement of the heavier stuff in the driver, Battery mostly, since the motors are about as low as they can go already.

              Comment


              • #67
                Your old wtc incorporated reduction gearing now all are mostly direct drive. Why the shift?
                Make it simple, make strong, make it work!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by redboat219 View Post
                  Your old wtc incorporated reduction gearing now all are mostly direct drive. Why the shift?
                  No. All our SD's are not mostly direct drive.

                  Only the SD's that power smaller r/c submarine models are direct drive. An old rule of thumb, put out by the German's, and I've found useful: if the propeller diameter is equal to or less than the motor can diameter, then it's OK to go direct drive. Through decades of practice I've found this to be true. And that's pretty much what drives my choice when I engineer a motor-bulkhead: will the motor can diameter be equal to, or exceed the diameter of the propeller/rotor its intended to drive? If so, I go direct drive. If not, I incorporate a 3:1 drive train.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0015.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	91.6 KB
ID:	93178 I employ a bio-dynamometer to determine the torque of a candidate motor for a specific application: I simply hook the damned thing to a power supply putting out the correct voltage, slip on a pair of leather work gloves, and grab the shaft. If it burns my fingers, it's good for direct drive. If it don't, I need to gear it down to match the prop/rotor I want to spin. I measure the current draw at maximum load (usually I can get to a complete stall), nice to know stuff when later working out recommended battery capacity for a specific SD.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCF2023.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	87.1 KB
ID:	93179 The motors used in our line of SD's are pictured here. From left-to-right: 130, 6-volt, 265 turns; 280, 6-volt, 85 turns; 385, 12-volt, 40 turns; 550, 12-volt, 25 turns. All but the 550 are cheap-ass three-pole types. The kick-ass 550 has five-poles.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCF2043.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	93.2 KB
ID:	93180 Before Mike bought our motors (in bulk, to get significant price breaks) we were first presented with a wide selection of candidate motors by our Chinese source. Each size motor came in different flavors of turns and poles. After I performed the above 'test' to the candidate motors, and made my selection, I took 'em apart to work out number of poles, and number of turns per pole. Nice to know stuff. I then informed Mike of the choices, and he made the buys. A little inside-baseball for you, sports-fans!

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCF2183.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	96.9 KB
ID:	93181 Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0056.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	84.5 KB
ID:	93182 Click image for larger version

Name:	027.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	87.8 KB
ID:	93183 Depending on the load the little 1.25" SD's either get the puny 130 or the substantial 280. As the cylinder is too small for anything but a planetary gear-train, these things are all direct-drive.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0131.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	86.0 KB
ID:	93184 Click image for larger version

Name:	035.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	86.2 KB
ID:	93185 Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0157 (2).jpg
Views:	4
Size:	86.9 KB
ID:	93186 Our slightly larger in diameter 2" SD's can take two 280 size motors, side by side. These direct drive power plants are fine for the 1/72 Type-7, and Moebius SEAVIEW models.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0012 (4).jpg
Views:	1
Size:	86.0 KB
ID:	93187 Click image for larger version

Name:	027.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	84.5 KB
ID:	93188 There is just enough room in the 2" SD to incorporate a 3:1 gear train with one motor -- this unit recommended for the 33" Brodeen Disney NAUTILUS, but was designed for the SD intended to operate our 1/96 Type-212.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	008.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	85.9 KB
ID:	93189 Click image for larger version

Name:	039.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	82.9 KB
ID:	93190 Almost all our 2.5" diameter SD's feature geared motors. The motor of choice here is the 385.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCF7965.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	91.6 KB
ID:	93191 Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCF7877.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	92.8 KB
ID:	93192 One new development is using a single 380, geared 3:1 to two shafts -- this specifically for our new 2.5" diameter SD designed to drive the Revell 1/72 Type-9 kit.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	copy009.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	89.8 KB
ID:	93193 Click image for larger version

Name:	029.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	82.6 KB
ID:	93194 Click image for larger version

Name:	030.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	95.9 KB
ID:	93195 All our 3.5" diameter SD's make use of the kick-ass 550, geared 3:1.

                  M
                  Last edited by He Who Shall Not Be Named; 01-14-2015, 11:34 AM.
                  "... well, that takes care of Jorgenson's theory!"

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Mr M, am I right in thinking, that I once read somewhere that you had something to do with the Akula on Crimson Tide?

                    Peter
                    Last edited by Peter W; 01-14-2015, 02:58 PM. Reason: I am an idiot

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Peter W View Post
                      Mr M, am I right in thinking, that I once read somewhere that you had something to do with the Akula on Crimson Tide?

                      Peter
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	sf talk041.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	89.9 KB
ID:	93196 Click image for larger version

Name:	sf talk042.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	89.8 KB
ID:	93197 Yup, fixed them up with my drawings (updated from the initial r/c submarine effort). And I built masters for all the effects miniature submarine propellers. And design of the weapons, some insights on how the AKULA shutter doors worked, and some advice on submarine choreography.

                      I worked up some fictitious (BS) vortex attenuators for the OHIO class boat -- gotta keep the faith with my fellow bubble-heads. I think the Art-Director went with the bulbous one.

                      If you review the u/w shots of the OHIO class boat, sometimes the propeller is spinning clockwise, sometimes counter-clockwise when going ahead?!!! Lazy bastereds simply flopped the negative during the editing to maintain continuiety during a scene. Yikes!

                      M
                      "... well, that takes care of Jorgenson's theory!"

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        How about The Abyss?
                        Make it simple, make strong, make it work!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by redboat219 View Post
                          How about The Abyss?
                          Some miniature choreography and unclassified OHIO class drawings. For that they gave me the smaller boomer miniature. How bout that! It became an ant-farm in the backyard.

                          M
                          "... well, that takes care of Jorgenson's theory!"

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by He Who Shall Not Be Named View Post
                            Some miniature choreography and unclassified OHIO class drawings. For that they gave me the smaller boomer miniature. How bout that! It became an ant-farm in the backyard.

                            M
                            You did what?!!!

                            Found this forum about the Abyss submersibles
                            http://www.therpf.com/f10/abyss-subm...roject-129858/

                            Shot of the Montana stern showing the unusual propeller. I'm having trouble posting image so here's the link.
                            http://rs157.pbsrc.com/albums/t63/Bu...93.jpg~320x480
                            Last edited by redboat219; 01-14-2015, 08:24 PM.
                            Make it simple, make strong, make it work!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by redboat219 View Post
                              You did what?!!!

                              Found this forum about the Abyss submersibles
                              http://www.therpf.com/f10/abyss-subm...roject-129858/

                              Shot of the Montana stern showing the unusual propeller. I'm having trouble posting image so here's the link.
                              http://rs157.pbsrc.com/albums/t63/Bu...93.jpg~320x480
                              Some miniature choreography and unclassified OHIO class drawings. That's what I did.

                              M
                              "... well, that takes care of Jorgenson's theory!"

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I'm surprised the Albacore didn't make it into the top ten handling boats.
                                DIVE IN! Go on, go on, go on, go on, GO ON! http://www.diveintomodelsubmarines.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X