Moebius Seaview 1:350 scale WIP

CapnMac82

A great build and a magnificent accomplishment.

 

A great build and a magnificent accomplishment.

Well, I made it to the end, and it only took 394 days. Who'd a thunk.

First things first

For the sake of visual interest I chose to mount all the available hardware onto the conning tower. Doing this was the very last step in this build, and wouldn't you know it--the gremlins tried to get in one more lick.

Each piece is mounted to the sprue tree on four sides. The parts are very small, the mounting pins are extremely delicate, and the tree connections are very thick. Cutting them off had invariably bent, or broke, the pins. I used cutters as far away from the piece as possible. It made no diff. A little twist in the tree and the damage is done. I thought, really? At the eleventh hour you are going to do this to me? Sigh.

Rather than slapping glue on and hoping for the best, I drilled the bottoms and glued in a piece of wire. The wire acts as the replacement anchor. It worked well.

 A display should have a plaque.

Seaview on parade

Max! I know that you had concerns about this subs power. The next few images demonstrates that the powerplant is alive and well.

It's a dark night

Final thoughts

1. It's all about the journey. There are a lot of firsts for me with this build, and it was a lot of fun fleshing them out.

2. This model has some fit issues. However, with a bucket of patience, and some major elbow grease, you can turn it into a nice scale model. I think that I paid $23 for this kit... and look at all the fun that this $23 provided. Of course, more was spent on peripherals, but...you get my point.

3. I want to say, "THANKS" ... to the few that faithfully encouraged me through this project. People like Max, Steve5, Capn, Greg, Docidle, and of course Timmy. As well as Nino, who had written some very encouraging messages to me.

4. A special thanks to Timmy and Steve5 for their prodding. Their doing so raised the bar by my adding fiber optics. I really love how they look! A thanks to Max about the squid! All of these things made positive differences with this project, and, it speaks to the value of doing a WIP. You end up going in new directions, and probably, where you wouldn't have gone otherwise. Hey--more importantly, I have made some new friends in the process.

5. This build had several twists and turns. I think that in each case it has lead to a better build. A wise man said, "The mind of a man plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps." (Proverbs 16:9)

Adios!

Greg

Ohhhh....looking good.

I really like the way the 'headlight' is peeping out the front.

on the water so far, Stevie.

 

Hodakamax

This is great!

Maxie

 

steve5

coming togther nicely steve . 

 

This is great!

Maxie

Ohhhh....looking good.

I really like the way the 'headlight' is peeping out the front.

on the water so far, Stevie.

coming togther nicely steve . 

Update

I think that I have the bow pretty much where I will leave it. As you know, all through this build, I had struggled with how I will do the bow. What I ultimately ended up with is shown below.

The idea here is that Maxie is pulling down on the stern, forcing the bow up. She has the sub in the beginning stages of a roll as well. I wanted the left fin raised above the water as shown in the image. I tried to simulate frothy water as it would run off the skin of the fin. I am not sure that I accomplished that, but, it is what it is.

Below: The base color coat is applied. I thinned the paint some before application because it comes out thick. As a result, I had to apply three applications of it to get full coverage.

Below: The turbulence layer is applied. I mixed the color by starting with white, and then by adding the base color of blue until I got the hue that I wanted. I dry brushed it on, heavier in some areas, lighter in others.

I plan to apply the gloss coat next. When that has dried, I can begin dry-brushing white paint on top of the waves.

End of update

CapnMac82

 

 

Bakster

Question: How long can a sub go submerged before it has to vent the Co2?

 

 

That's one of those questions everyone gets to speculate upon, as all the "official" sources will clam up tight on the topic.

CO2 can be "scrubbed" with things as simple as potash; and as complicated as some lithium hydride compounds.  Most of the scrubbing methods use carbon's chemical affinity to bind it to something other than oxygen.  There are some limitations, since entropy cannot be denied.  Like you often get O3, ozone, instead of O2 out of the other end of the reaction (whether recombinant or catlyitic).  Also, oxygen is impolite and will tuen unwatned things into "ates," particularly along that slippery flourine, chlorine, boron column of the table.

Since this is chemical, it's also finite.  At a certain point, you need fresh air.  Now, the nuke boats can electrolitically "crack" H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, but that creates an unwanted supply of flamable hydrogen to keep an eye upon.  And the best "water" to "crack" is distilled deionized, which is kinda needful to run the boiler system on the boat.  Or from the potable supply onboard (which will not be a crew favorite, even if breathing trumps drinking).

Now, a submarine is also chock full of air, too.  They need banks of both high pressure and low pressure air to empty balast tanks.  This is not something they are keen to run low on.  So, compressors are run to keep the tank banks charged whenever possible.

 

Thanks for sharing!

Steve

steve5

I love reading the capt's knowledge on these subject's

that was a good question steve , I love reading the capt's knowledge on these subject's .

Bakster

Question: How long can a sub go submerged before it has to vent the Co2?

That's one of those questions everyone gets to speculate upon, as all the "official" sources will clam up tight on the topic.

CO2 can be "scrubbed" with things as simple as potash; and as complicated as some lithium hydride compounds.  Most of the scrubbing methods use carbon's chemical affinity to bind it to something other than oxygen.  There are some limitations, since entropy cannot be denied.  Like you often get O3, ozone, instead of O2 out of the other end of the reaction (whether recombinant or catlyitic).  Also, oxygen is impolite and will tuen unwatned things into "ates," particularly along that slippery flourine, chlorine, boron column of the table.

Since this is chemical, it's also finite.  At a certain point, you need fresh air.  Now, the nuke boats can electrolitically "crack" H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, but that creates an unwanted supply of flamable hydrogen to keep an eye upon.  And the best "water" to "crack" is distilled deionized, which is kinda needful to run the boiler system on the boat.  Or from the potable supply onboard (which will not be a crew favorite, even if breathing trumps drinking).

Now, a submarine is also chock full of air, too.  They need banks of both high pressure and low pressure air to empty balast tanks.  This is not something they are keen to run low on.  So, compressors are run to keep the tank banks charged whenever possible.

CapnMac82

They are also making everyone on the boat miserable, as, every time the snorkle shuts, the blowers take their air from the inside of the boat.  So, the pressure drops and your ears pop.  To pop again when the valve opens agin after the wave passes.  Makes for a cranky and irritable crew.  Cranky and irritable crews make mistakes.

All of that is very interesting, and I had never heard this about the snorkel issues. Very very interesting. Thanks for sharing that! If you have more, I am all ears.

Question: How long can a sub go submerged before it has to vent the Co2? 

Bakster

For book learning, that is pretty darn good!

Well, if one is being taught the details of Astonishly Slow Warfare, you have to lear details of the quarry.

The ocean surface reveals no hint of a submerged submarine.  However, the surface is almost as blank a slate to the submarine as well.

So, the submariners have to poke things through the surface.  Antenae to listen, 'scopes to see, snokles for fresh air (or, more importantly, to dump CO2).

Attack 'scope has a radar cross section of only a few centimeters at best.  So, you need and X-Band (millimeter wavelength) radar to spot one at any distance.

You don't see it much in movies as it spoils the camera angles, but submariners are sneaky.  If there's 60' of 'scope, they only raise it 55' and surface to the same depth.  They then lay on the deck to look through the 'scope.  Then, they'll inch the scope (and/or the boat) up a foot or so until there's just enough out to see.  So, there's maybe 15-20cm of this thing poking over just the crests of the waves.  Were it not for the need to pivot the top prism, there'd be scarce anything there to give a radar reflection at all.

The sky scope is much bigger, K-Band (centimeter wavelength) radar will spot one.  Good lookout with fresh eyes and good light conditions can find one miles off.  Only an inattentive bubblehead has his sky 'scope spotted.

Snorkles are huge.  Way over a square meter of cross section.  Rather gaudy wakes from them for the airedailes to spot.  With a bonus, in any kind of chop, every  time the head ducks into a wave, the exhaust makes a bunch of lovely turbulent bubbles, which leave a foam trace on the sea.  They also are audible. 

They are also making everyone on the boat miserable, as, every time the snorkle shuts, the blowers take their air from the inside of the boat.  So, the pressure drops and your ears pop.  To pop again when the valve opens agin after the wave passes.  Makes for a cranky and irritable crew.  Cranky and irritable crews make mistakes.

And mistakes are real important in ASW.

steve5

I was wondering if he was back tripping around with the greatful dead again . 

 

 

I was wondering if he was back tripping around with the greatful dead again . 

PS: Timmy just wrote me and said to say hi to anyone that thinks he's dead. Sounds like Tim. Don't it? Lol. He is working on a solution to join the living again. It may be another week or so.

FYI.

CapnMac82

Now, I'm Surface, not a bubblehead , so what I have is book learning one how to find the sneaky buggers before they provide a "hot datum" (ship struck by torpedo).

Two 'scopes is legit.  Forward one is the Attack scope.  It's skinnier and the head is primarily designed to get precision information to track a surface target.  After 'scope is the Sky Periscope.  Has a larger head, and sometimes, is a bit longer.  The 'scope head is much bigger as it can rotate the view from horizon to vertical.  Usually the optics are good enough to star sight, back when submariners used things like sextants and the like to navigate. 

Some boats have enough space to man both scopes, so, surfaced, probably only the sky 'scope is up, to give a lookout some altitude.

Binnacle is legit, even if it's more an adeliade/pelorous.

Radar mast is one of those oddballs.  You need to get it as high as possible, to have a reasonable "horizon" to image.  But, the higher up it is, the more RF "visible" it is, and leaves a wake in the water (uless you go really slow--wabbit-huntin' slow). 

Snorkel mast is a big honker--huge radar cross-ssection, big, churned wake--none of those things are good for subs.  Would not be raised while surfaced.

RDF mast is a poser.  Not really used much after 1946.  You'd need significant SigInt (Signals Intelligence) to know which ranging radio beacon was which, and where away it bears.  USN switched over to Loran (which had its own mast) before going to Inertial Navigation and the like.  The Unterseeboote had a big bedspring doodad which was used to detect radar signals (it was not popular, it could detect signals twice as far as they could be tracked, which equaled a lot of crash dives).

Modern boats have a satnav mast, and a GPS mast (or one for both), which is often raised while surfaced, to give a larger line-of-sight for that equipment.

Whether Seaview had/would have SatNav, GPS, INS, etc. is an entirely separate debate.  They probably ought to have a Loran mast (which will be a pretty boring tube, with a knobby bit at the end; and/or the sail fairing).  Probably ought to have three radio aerials--HF, VHF, & UHF (skinny poles with no real details).

 

Me, I'd be torn.  Either put it all on there and call it even, for adding visual interest.  Or, just poke one 'scope up, the radar, and a couple of skinny bits of tubing for antennae.  Oh, and a US flag on a 6' staff somewhere near the aft end of the cubby.

That's my 2¢; you'll want at least $3 more for good coffee

 

Now, I'm Surface, not a bubblehead , so what I have is book learning one how to find the sneaky buggers before they provide a "hot datum" (ship struck by torpedo).

Two 'scopes is legit.  Forward one is the Attack scope.  It's skinnier and the head is primarily designed to get precision information to track a surface target.  After 'scope is the Sky Periscope.  Has a larger head, and sometimes, is a bit longer.  The 'scope head is much bigger as it can rotate the view from horizon to vertical.  Usually the optics are good enough to star sight, back when submariners used things like sextants and the like to navigate. 

Some boats have enough space to man both scopes, so, surfaced, probably only the sky 'scope is up, to give a lookout some altitude.

Binnacle is legit, even if it's more an adeliade/pelorous.

Radar mast is one of those oddballs.  You need to get it as high as possible, to have a reasonable "horizon" to image.  But, the higher up it is, the more RF "visible" it is, and leaves a wake in the water (uless you go really slow--wabbit-huntin' slow). 

Snorkel mast is a big honker--huge radar cross-ssection, big, churned wake--none of those things are good for subs.  Would not be raised while surfaced.

RDF mast is a poser.  Not really used much after 1946.  You'd need significant SigInt (Signals Intelligence) to know which ranging radio beacon was which, and where away it bears.  USN switched over to Loran (which had its own mast) before going to Inertial Navigation and the like.  The Unterseeboote had a big bedspring doodad which was used to detect radar signals (it was not popular, it could detect signals twice as far as they could be tracked, which equaled a lot of crash dives).

Modern boats have a satnav mast, and a GPS mast (or one for both), which is often raised while surfaced, to give a larger line-of-sight for that equipment.

Whether Seaview had/would have SatNav, GPS, INS, etc. is an entirely separate debate.  They probably ought to have a Loran mast (which will be a pretty boring tube, with a knobby bit at the end; and/or the sail fairing).  Probably ought to have three radio aerials--HF, VHF, & UHF (skinny poles with no real details).

Me, I'd be torn.  Either put it all on there and call it even, for adding visual interest.  Or, just poke one 'scope up, the radar, and a couple of skinny bits of tubing for antennae.  Oh, and a US flag on a 6' staff somewhere near the aft end of the cubby.

That's my 2¢; you'll want at least $3 more for good coffee

Say Capn--you are extremely knowledgeable about such things--I wonder if you would be willing to educate this landlubber. My questions to YOU come in two parts:

1. In the real world, and on a real sub, are these features typical? And if so--what are their functions? How much of this is sci-fi gibberish? I know about the periscope, and a ladder. With this model they have two periscopes. Is this possible on a real sub? If so--why two? Are they used differently? What does the snorkel do? The R.D.F.? And with the radar/mast--is this deployed only when surfaced? And what is its primary purpose? Of the features shown, which are deployable, and which are fixed? (I didn't say deplorable. That would be me.) 

2. Considering the theme of this dio, and if it was you building it--which of these features would you mount, and not mount. I'd be interested in why too.

Sorry to put you on the spot. I just want to broaden my knowledge on this subject. If you prefer to punt--just say punt. There will be no hard feelings. 

Thanks Capn!

A milestone reached 

Below: The fibre optics are attached to the light engine and eveything is secured.

I am loving this hot glue stuff. It really holds things. For jobs like this that won't be seen--it is perfect for the job. I used it to secure the sub, the wires, the light engine, and even the optics. Thanks for the tip, Max.

I thought this day would never come. The pedestal is attached. 

And no more VHS tapes.

I have one more thing to do at the bow, then I can start laying down some color.

Later.

Hodakamax

Check out those large grabbers and heat device.

 AAAAAAAAAAHH!!!! A giant monster is attacking the Seaview from below!!! Check out those large grabbers and heat device. It appears to have spun some red and white restraining devices!------Wait----Repairs???----Never mind. Carry on.

steve5

Nice to hear you got your problem sorted steve . The only thing I could think of was to lightly sand , and that had to take paint off , so I just kepty big mouth shut .                         What has happened to little timmy ??

 

LT has lost all ability to use the FSM forum. He can access other sites with no problem. He thinks FSM has changed some things and his computer doesn't like it. He is working off of XP, and that OS is long gone for MS support. I hope he finds a way back. I wish he could just get a new computer because, that is what he needs. 

Nice to hear you got your problem sorted steve . The only thing I could think of was to lightly sand , and that had to take paint off , so I just kepty big mouth shut .                         What has happened to little timmy ??

I guess nobody had any good idea on your paint blemish. Sounds like you did great. You get another A for perserverance.

Glad the sub's lights are working ok. That's a big deal.

More info on my goof up over in my VW thread, but briefly I sprayed Testors lacquer clear coat gloss over a base of alclad gloss black primer which I'm pretty sure is also lacquer, and made a mess. It's odd the dumb things we do sometimes.

Okay-- this should be my last update for the weekend.

Today, I fixed what the Gremlin did, and I applied a second layer of gel. Also--I started and finished soldering the wire connections. The lights work as they should, thank goodness. I was having an intermittent issue with the bow light and it took me a while to find the problem. I was worried that a bad connection at the bow was the issue, and the bow is sealed up. What a kick in the pants that would be if after all of this, the bow light wouldn't work. The problem ended up being a connection at the stern. Lastly, the cadillac fins are attached, and the optics fed through for connection.

My goal for this week is to make the optical connections, and then close the bottom using the pedestal. This should be a very doable. Then, I can work on the dio whilst it's on the base, and not stacked on VHS tapes. All I need is for the thing to slip and crash to the floor. So many ways for a project to die.

Later.

Greg

Light is great, isn't it?

Greg

What happened with the blemish? I just had a wreck using Testors clear coat gloss is a rattle can so I hope you ended up ok.

Funny you should ask; I just came up from the dungeon. In lieu of any advice from the forum, I dived into it. I think that I can safely say that NO--it is not a good thing to sand it out. Why? Because... I had quickly sanded through to the primer coat. And, the splotch was not completely gone yet. What sanded through are the areas surrounding the defect. I tried to focus on the splotch, but at this scale--you can't avoid extending beyond it. So... there you go... it is another lesson learned.

Notwithstanding, I have fixed it. I had saved a color coat sample and I used it to repair the mess. It was a process though. Spraying over the area affected the weathering that I did with the powders. So, I applied some powder, and then filtered it with the color coat. Bang! It is fixed! Only in a certain light can you tell that something odd is there. The reason for that is that I stopped sanding when I noticed the primer coming through. In hindsight--I should have kept going with the sanding. Then... fix the mess on the back end. Though the answer is YES--it will make it worse, it is still fixable. Kind of like the old adage, it has to get worse, before it gets better.

To any newbies following this thread: Always  Always make extra of the color coat, and save it for contingencies like this. This is primarily true if you are mixing custom colors. In my case, I had. There is no way that I could have fixed this by trying to mix another color batch. It would never match, and the fix would look like garbage. By using the batch that I saved, it is a spot-on match. You can't even tell I was there messing with it.

Blah blah. Bakster is blabbering again.

So GREG--what happened on yours?