Moebius Seaview 1:350 scale WIP

Ah, action on the Seaview! I'm deep into my motorcycle project and have nobody to talk to on the modeling forum. One must be versatile, but I miss the modeling conversation. I need to at least start a model project to keep in touch with my friends. lol. Meanwhile I can watch the Seaview project to keep me entertained! Carry on.

Max

So true Capn...so true. 

Bakster

Patience is the order of the day, not my strongest virtue

O what soaring Feats I could but attain, ere I had even a meager portion of Patience more than I posess now.

That 01:46 for popcorn can be, like, foreever!

Leap of faith

The experimentation is coming along pretty well. I have settled on a wave pattern similar to the waves shown in the image below. It goes without saying that the MRR technique has its limitations. Certainly, you can't produce big rolling waves by using this method. It seems to do well with rippling waves, and with breaking waves as one would see as they break closer to shore. You can also produce wakes as the video shows, but in my testing, I didn't like them for what I am trying to accomplish. For that, I am trying something else.

The MRR technique does not allow for large rolling wakes. So, I have to improvise. I cut and shaped one out of a piece of plexiglass. The plexiglass piece will be the base that I will build upon to hopefully create a convincing wake. This is a leap of faith for me because I am really pushing the limits of my meager artistry. I have ideas on how to get there, but they are untested and fuzzy. I have no choice but to jump in... and see if I can swim. Blub blub blub. 

End of update.

Hodakamax

Time, Patience? Go for it !  

Egads! I have my hands full getting the ocean water under control. But, maybe, I can subcontract the tentacle job out.  They'll have to be one of Nelsons approved contractors though.

I did a few more tests tonight. It is slow going because you have to wait for things to cure between steps. Patience is the order of the day, not my strongest virtue. Sigh.

Bakster

 

 

CapnMac82

Well, if they had put any other ship name and number on the hull but one lost in battle, it would be different. And, as a person who has been at sea on Navy ships, there are many things that occasionally are not right.  But, then artistic impression could be allowed for.

 

 

 

Funny about the Octopus. If I had time and the patience, I might add a large tentacle wrapped around the hull. Now that would be fun...

 

 

Time, Patience? Go for it !  

Max

CapnMac82

Well, if they had put any other ship name and number on the hull but one lost in battle, it would be different. And, as a person who has been at sea on Navy ships, there are many things that occasionally are not right.  But, then artistic impression could be allowed for.

Exactly, and well said. 

Funny about the Octopus. If I had time and the patience, I might add a large tentacle wrapped around the hull. Now that would be fun...

Bakster

You quantified your displeasure by pointing out that it was technically and historicaly inaccurate.

Well, if they had put any other ship name and number on the hull but one lost in battle, it would be different.

And, as a person who has been at sea on Navy ships, there are many things that occasionally are not right.  But, then artistic impression could be allowed for.

Ok, hull paint on Atlantic convoy duty took a serious beating.  But, hull paint was addressed when the ships reached port at either end of the transits.   WWII USN ships saw yard refits on a 6 month schedule; auxillaries every 12 months or so.


To get this back to track--This Seaview will look fine in a bunch of washes, some extremely limited chipping, and the odd pin wash or two to set panels off. 
Now, historically, research ships are under-maned, so they are not necessarily ***-n-span.  But, with the tv series are canon, Seaview had a large crew, so a "Bristol fashion" ship-shape finish is appropriate.  Unless you want to put some giant squid scars on

CapnMac82

For one, the ship was lost in combat.  For the other, the ship was in the yard for an overhaul not 60 days before her loss.  It's a touchy subject for me.

Maybe I have not been in modeling long enough to be irked by this stuff. And maybe that will change over time. For now though, I can appreciate the technical challenges involved to pull off a "convincing" weathering job. From my own experience, it is not easy, as I am still learning. I lean towards it's their art, they can make it how it feels right to them. I guess it's the same old arguments that we have all read, which I won't rehash. BUT..

 your example Capn is, I think, an excellent one. This seems like an appropriate example for inappropriate weathering. You quantified your displeasure by pointing out that it was technically and historicaly inaccurate. It seems pretty black and white, and that leaves little room for argument. On that level, the weathering would bother me too. In my opinion, this an excellent example of how to critique the subject.

steve5

loving this steve , so intriguing

 

Thanks, Steve. It is good to hear you that are enjoying this!

Rob Gronovius

Today, the amount of weathering has gotten out of hand.

This is a true statement.

Keep seeing equipment that looks like it ought to be in a junk yard, not organisations with motor pools and echanics and trains.

There's another site, which has a respectable Fletcher Class model detailed therein.  Only problem is that the hull paint looks like it belongs to an aboundoned scow beached at the shipbreakers.
Which sore offends.  For one, the ship was lost in combat.  For the other, the ship was in the yard for an overhaul not 60 days before her loss.  It's a touchy subject for me.

loving this steve , so intriguing

Making lemonade out of lemons

Below: You may recall when I said that two screws are better than one. Well, as luck would have it, one of them broke through the plexiglass rendering it useless. I resigned myself to using only one. I will use epoxy on the housing to help secure it.

Moving on... I needed to drill a hole through the backing board in order to route the wiring under the glass, that leads into the Seaview compartment. I stared at that now useless hole, and I wondered, can I use that hole for the wires instead?

Yes I can, is the answer. I had to pop off (lower right) that plastic cover in order to do it, but that is no matter. What is nice about this is that now, there will be no visible wiring.

Below: Using a grinding bit, I cut a groove in the backing board so that the wires will lay recessed under the glass.

Below: The plexglass is affixed. I really wanted to do all the water-work with having the glass off of the base, but... with the glass being so flexible, I feared that I would risk fracturing things during handling. The glass bends under its own weight even. It's better that I affix it. By doing it this way though, it makes doing some other things harder to do. 

A few things to note:

1. I sanded the plexiglass in the hope that it will allow for a stronger bond to the wave layer. I was careful not to sand the area at the bow.  

2. The blotches are areas where I applied epoxy. The glass gets pulled down when the pedestal is screw down, but, I wanted a little something more to minimize movement when the pedestal is not installed. It won't be permanently installed until I can secure the sub into its berth.

Below: Here is my second attempt at using the Model RR method. With this test, I am still striving to fabricate the waves, and, to acclimate myself with the various products and processes used.

You can see that I experimented with making a bow wave as well. I wouldn't take too much from this, it is crude. But, for me, I think that this will work for this project. I am moving forward with it. I plan to run a few more of these tests before I actually do it on the plexiglass. I need more practice with the waves, and, I need to hone a few other things too.

Here is a link to how this is done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TwpB7sVMn8

One thing though. I have already diverged from the author's process at the point when the waves are formed. I plan to try experimenting with using something other than PVA glue as well. 

More to come.

littletimmy

Model railroaders have quite a few "tricks" up their sleeves

So true. I came across a number of tricks that they use that produce stunning realism to their layouts. There is a ton that we can learn from them. 

Bakster

I also tried a very different model railroader approach. The latter of these two has some serious promise. 

Model railroaders have quite a few "tricks" up their sleeves. Dont forget , they "invented" weathering.

( How did the Armor guys come up with pitchforks and torches so fast ???) Thought Little Timmy as he ran for his life.

steve5

this should be good , can't wait mate .

steve5

 

Hey Steve, I wish that I had your confidence in the good outcome. I am flying by the seat of my pants! Lol. Hoping for the best! 

Thanks!

this should be good , can't wait mate .

steve5

Say Rob, thanks for sharing all that. It is fun to think about!

Ocean water

As many of you know, and as I am learning, there are a number of different ways to simulate ocean water. For my project, and because of what I am trying to do with the bow light, I have to think outside of the box. In my mail yesterday were some gels that I ordered. I did some preliminary trials with them, I acheived so-so results. I also tried a very different model railroader approach. The latter of these two has some serious promise. 

More to come as I home in on this.

Bakster

 

 

Rob Gronovius

If I was still a kid, and had a pool, I'd probably build one of the repopped Aurora ones just to see. Another submarine I built many years ago was the SeaQuest DSV by Monogram in the 1990s. The surface was rough so I figured it wouldn't sail through the water as smoothly.

 

 

Lets say that you could turn back the clock, and you had a pool. Walk me through how you would test it. It sounds like a fun experiment. Would you secure a string at the bow and pull it along?

 

When I built the old Aurora kits, I used a stick of modeling clay and molded it to the inside of the lower portion of the hull. I remember adding some oblong lead fishing weights to the clay. With the Skipjack, when I tossed it into the pool, sort of like throwing a dart, it dove, sprinted across the pool and nosed into the far side before surfacing. It swam straight and traveled like a bullet underwater. I remember doing something so the propeller would free spin, as opposed to being fixed, and gluing the aft reactor hatch shut and waterproofing the seam with modeling putty. I hand painted it Testors gloss clear to see how fast it would go.

I know if the IJN sub was released deep underwater and given forward thrust, it would swim towards the surface smoothly and straight before surfacing.

I'd probably do something similar to figure out how to make the seaview travel underwater, straight, and not sink or dive towards the bottom, but instead have enough buoyancy to rise towards the surface as it travels forward.

CapnMac82

To my memeory of, ahem, hydrodynamic testing of Seaview, the bow flares tended to nose-dive her.  From my present perspective, I imagine you'd need up angle on the stern planes and probably the sail planse as well.

Capn, that makes sence to me. Fighting the ship that way doesn't sound like something that is too desirable.

Rob Gronovius

If I was still a kid, and had a pool, I'd probably build one of the repopped Aurora ones just to see. Another submarine I built many years ago was the SeaQuest DSV by Monogram in the 1990s. The surface was rough so I figured it wouldn't sail through the water as smoothly.

Lets say that you could turn back the clock, and you had a pool. Walk me through how you would test it. It sounds like a fun experiment. Would you secure a string at the bow and pull it along?

Bakster

 

 

Rob Gronovius

I always wanted to try the Seaview in the same way. I was very curious to see how seaworthy it would be under water. The I-19 ran very well underwater, just not nearly as speedy as the Skipjack. I wonder if it would be aquadynamic or more like a bulldozer underwater.

 

 

Hey Rob, I have often wondered if some military brainiac had the shape tested. 

PS: No offence to our military brains. No slander intended.

 

If I was still a kid, and had a pool, I'd probably build one of the repopped Aurora ones just to see. Another submarine I built many years ago was the SeaQuest DSV by Monogram in the 1990s. The surface was rough so I figured it wouldn't sail through the water as smoothly.

Hydrodynamics gets longhai egghead quick.

You spend rather a long time dealing with "k" factors--the turbulence created by a surface immersed in water.  Some of that is surface tension (molecular stability of water); some the dissovled things in the water. 

Different liquids are different, PTFE, for one has a bunch of things with very dense electron shells when in molecular cohesion, so there are few "bumps" on them.  Molecularly water is bumpy, which is what makes it such a relentless solvent.  Those "spaces" are also why so many things will go into solution with water.

So, that surface boundary layer does all sorts of things.  Like creating drag; or piling up a secondary layer upon the first (and so on).  Which is where we get the hydrodynamicist's foe:  cavitation.

Add in hydrosonography, an it gets really wobbly.

Every bump, every intake, every hatch, every appuretnance creates some cavitation, and therefore, noise.  Water is 14 times denser than air, so sounds propogate over ginormous distances, even while following a cube root inversion.

Which goes even more complex with biobathyrithmic stratification (salinity, density, temperature, currents/gyres, etc.) which act as sonic reflectors.

So, we cover the boats in anechoic tile.  Which bears very fine grooves (to hold and break boundary layers), and looks matte, when it is actually glossy.  So, big honking window panes are probably not the best idea.  Neither are "manta fins."  How quiet Seaview's tail empennage would have been is probably academic (and/or classified).  Scorpion & Skipjack went through a bunch of tail configurations looking for the best answer--mostly to decide that putting the screw aft of the fins was a simpler answer.  Which worked out better when the superiority of a towed array was demonstrated to one and all.

To my memeory of, ahem, hydrodynamic testing of Seaview, the bow flares tended to nose-dive her.  From my present perspective, I imagine you'd need up angle on the stern planes and probably the sail planse as well.

Rob Gronovius

I always wanted to try the Seaview in the same way. I was very curious to see how seaworthy it would be under water. The I-19 ran very well underwater, just not nearly as speedy as the Skipjack. I wonder if it would be aquadynamic or more like a bulldozer underwater.

Hey Rob, I have often wondered if some military brainiac had the shape tested. 

PS: No offence to our military brains. No slander intended.

Bakster

 

Who is up for some nostalgia?

 

The TV series Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea aired from 1964 to 1968. I was 4 years old at the onset of the show; my brother is two years older than I am. We scarcely missed an episode.

I can still laugh about how my brother planned his day around the airing of each new episode. He was a man on a mission, and I was pulled along by his wake. Even at that early age I laughed about his resolve. Later, as the model kits were released, we both built the Aurora SV kits, and we did so more than once. My brother was in near rapture when they released the flying sub. It was out of this world to him. These were the good old days, when everything was a wonder.

Today, I am setting out to re-build this pretty simple kit. This time though, I am going with the new Moebius release.

How do you take a pretty cool looking sub and make it cooler? I suppose you can add lights and hyper detail the thing. Still, in the end, is that enough? How about putting the sub in a sea going diorama? Now, that would be cool. Well, that is what I am setting out to do with this kit. This will be the challenge of the build because, I have not done a sea going diorama before. As they say though, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

..

4. Model the sub in a sea going diorama.

I'm 4 years younger than you, but I remember watching this show as a kid, but probably towards the end of the series or in syndicated reruns. One of my first kits was the Aurora flying sub with removable roof. It did not swim very well. I remember building several Aurora subs, the Japanese one with the plane on the deck (I-19?) and the Skipjack adding some clay to the lower hull and making them swim underwater. That Skipjack moved like lightning through the water. My brother and I raced them, but it was too uneven.

I always wanted to try the Seaview in the same way. I was very curious to see how seaworthy it would be under water. The I-19 ran very well underwater, just not nearly as speedy as the Skipjack. I wonder if it would be aquadynamic or more like a bulldozer underwater.

It's time to make waves

Here is the rub. I have a vision in my mind of what I want it to look like, but the path to get there is still in flux. I see this stage very reminiscent of my struggle to simulate wood on my Mayflower build. It was a process. I hope this goes easier than that though.

For now, while I am away, latch onto your flotation devices because the water could get rough. That means you too, Max. And use your shark repellent for cripes sake. Sheesh.

CapnMac82

For all his openess with us, our Professor was a private man.  I suspect that he had some health issues which he kept to himself, as they had no bearing on what he was sharing and living with us.

Capn, I think that you hit the nail on the head. Months before his retirement he mentioned  something to me in a PM that alluded to him having something checked out. He did not let on that it was anything serious. Like you said, he was a private man, and it would not surprise me to learn that he was keeping it close to his vest.

On Sunday, I forced myself to work on this project in order to get my mind off of things. You know...when that plexiglass cracked on me I was not surprised. In a spiritual sense, that crack is a reflection of how I feel about his passing. A part of me broke on hearing the news. What more can I say. He will be dearly missed, and he was taken from us way too soon.

Thanks for posting. 

Bakster

I am in a bit of funk about Tilley. His passing has hit me really hard. I didn't see this coming, and it is so dang upsetting to know that he served so many, for so many years, and the man barely had time to enjoy his retirement.

Ditto.

For all his openess with us, our Professor was a private man.  I suspect that he had some health issues which he kept to himself, as they had no bearing on what he was sharing and living with us.

When it gets me down, I'll go find some of Daniel's (dafi) postings.  He's a serious person who is also light of heart.  And the light of heart can lift us all.

When that doesn't work, I'll spin up my recording of the Anapolis kids singing the Navy Hymn.

Failing that, I'll try to make heads or tails out of quatnum tensor mechanics, which becomes pretty absurd with color and charm and the like.  At which point I can just go watch old MMonty Python videos or the like.

I caught myself lofting boat frames the other day--but I stopped when I could not decide if they were 1:1 or not (garage is too messy and desk is likewise--sigh)

Bakster

I am trying to decide if I should attempt warping areas at the bow to create a sort of water bulge. You know, like water is piling up at the bow as the sub presses through the water. I really like the idea but it is filled with pitfalls.

Remember my quote above? Well, I fell into it. I softened the plastic via a heat gun, and then strategically applied pressure to lift up on the softened plastic. It was working fine up until the plexiglass cracked.

Now what? Well, after closer inspection, I determined that the crack is in an area where it will be covered and hidden by waves. It did sort of put a damper on something that I was thinking about trying, but, maybe not. I think that I can still do it, but on a scaled down version. Thank goodness the crack does not affect the bow light. In that case, this would be a complete do-over.

Below: Here is how the polishing is coming along. What this image does not show is just how ugly it was beforehand. I had decided to thin the plexiglass down forward of the bow. I was hoping that I would get less light diffraction by doing so. Anyway, after using my grinding bit, it meant a lot of sanding to smooth out the torn up plastic. Unfortunately, there are still a few aberrations in the plastic where I didn't do a good enough job sanding. I might try to see if flowing on PFC will get rid of that. Worst case, I leave it, and I imagine it as bubbles. Or, I sand that area again and re-polish it. Btw, I used Novis to polish this it out. The stuff worked pretty well; it was my first time using it. 

You can see the crack. I used CA to secure and seal it.

Below: Here is a side view. I did manage to acheive a few little swells by my warping it. I am not sure that it was worth the effort. Time will tell.

Below: The red mark shows an estimated demarcation boundary of where I will try to maintain clear plastic. The wave process will be on the other side of those lines, and it will completely obscure anything below it. The trick will be in transitioning the two together in a believable way.  

Below: The image below is just another view.

That is all for now.