# Will the New Moebius Seaview kie replace the Aurora Seaview



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi Folks,Now that this New kit of the Seaview is out and I will pick up 1 or 2 this Friday.I have seen some pictures and it looks good.I'm wondering if this New kit will replace the Aurora Seaview in Quality.In test fitting my Big Flying Sub model the fit is flawless and I assume it be this good on the Moebius Small Seaview.How is the detailing on the Observation Nose on this new kit?Someone please tell me,Thanks Guy Schlicter.


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

After you see the Moebius kit, you will give the PL one to your dog to play with...it's a very elegant looking sub, The fit is very good only a "whisper" of filler was needed when I put the hull together,.I'll post side by sides tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

The Aurora/Polar Lights _Seaview_ still makes a great pool toy. Just let it fill with water, give it a little push and it glides straight and level to the bottom.

As a display model, side-by-side with the small Moebius _Seaview_, the old one looks like a deformed caricature.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

scotpens said:


> The Aurora/Polar Lights _Seaview_ still makes a great pool toy. Just let it fill with water, give it a little push and it glides straight and level to the bottom.
> .


OMG, I did that all the time when I was a kid! It would go all the wat across our 20-foot pool before it hit bottom, and I'd follow it along with a diving mask.

The flying sub would do a neat "falling leaf" straight to the bottom!


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

scotpens said:


> The Aurora/Polar Lights _Seaview_ still makes a great pool toy. Just let it fill with water, give it a little push and it glides straight and level to the bottom.
> 
> As a display model, side-by-side with the small Moebius _Seaview_, the old one looks like a deformed caricature.


I did the same thing with the Seaview in the pool but then I got the great idea of displaying it in my dad's aquarium and the toxic glue killed all of his fish! Hey I was only 9 years old and I didn't know! Boy was he mad!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

looks like we all did that. 

I glued a couple of long, thin lead weights to the inside of the keel, Seaview was a pretty sharp sub under water. I guess it isn't until it's scaled up that the toublesome hydrodynamic issues arise.

And the Flying Sub. That always used to bug me, how it wouldn't 'fly' straight under water, how as soon as 'power' fell below a certain level it would stall, just nose up and 'fall' off the port wing. ALWAYS the left side.

It's funny, there's a shot of the FS on the show (and it got reused any number of times) where it's not on the wire and it does EXACTLY that. Drifts, loses momentum, noses up, falls off the left wing. 

Not being wise in such things, I just assumed that part of the problem is the basic shape of the front window area but for the life of me I can't figure out why it ALWAYS falls off the same wing. Is a puzzlement.


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

Here's a shot of side by side:








The seams needing filling are minimal:








The stbd. side observation window on my copy sank a bit, just enough to pull open the center seam an R.C.H.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Wow...day and NIGHT difference, huh?

altho I have to say, the profile of the Aurora Seaview DOES match one of the smaller filming models, that whole 'blue whale forehead bulge' look of the bow area.

All that says to me is that Moebius really should do a 8-window Seaview as a companion piece.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm gonna hafta build the Aurora one with a 1" plug ahead of the sail if I plan on sitting them side-by-side, or it'll look ridiculous.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

steve123 said:


> . . . The stbd. side observation window on my copy sank a bit, just enough to pull open the center seam an R.C.H.


Excuse my ignorance, but what's an R.C.H.?

EDIT: Never mind -- I looked it up. :lol:

Never heard that one before!


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

LOL! You have got to stay on top of these technical terms!


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

scotpens said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but what's an R.C.H.?
> 
> EDIT: Never mind -- I looked it up. :lol:
> 
> Never heard that one before!


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

the old Aurora kit has an undisputable charm...no doubt about it. I say it is pretty good for it's time. The Moebius kit...well, it ROCKS!
Gary:tongue:


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

I'm a model kit fan. I likes them both! Still haven't gotten my hands on an original Aurora release yet. But it's on my shopping list!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I think there is plenty of room for these two models to peaceably coexist. The original Aurora/PL kit is a classic, which I believe is complimented nicely by the new Moebius release.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Trek Ace said:


> I think there is plenty of room for these two models to peaceably coexist. The original Aurora/PL kit is a classic, which I believe is complimented nicely by the new Moebius release.


And it doesn't hurt to acknowledge that, if not for Aurora - Polar Lights, Moebius, Monarch, and indeed this very board never would have seen the light of day.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

There is a huge but still very subtle difference between the two kits. The Moebius kit is much crisper and has the lines and shapes that we all wanted from the Aurora kit. The bulging fs bay on the 1/128 kit has been pretty much corrected on this kit. In the smaller scale, the nose looks closer to the correct shape when viewed from above, so no correction needed there. The sonar domes are still a little long and a little far back and the prop tubes are still the wrong shape and too far apart. 
Fixing the Moebius won't be as much work as fixing the Aurora, but there's still some work to be done, if you're so inclined. 
If you're lucky enough to have a PL re-pop kicking around, with a little cutting and filling you can easily replace the Moebius tubes with a more accurate shape (that's the PL below, in black plastic). If you want to convert the Moebius kit into an 8 window version, reshaping the nose and manta fin in this scale and extending the deck would be a snap. You can use your PL clear windows, some fine sandpaper (or Micro Mesh) and plastic polish to shape and clear the new old windows. 
With a little work on the Moebius, a little extra work on the PL, you should be able to create the envy of any bathtub fleet from either. 
And there's also the wonderful thrill of going into a model shop and discovering a little tiny new Seaview box hidden in the middle of an amazing section of largely Moebius products. Just suddenly back in 7th grade again. You'll never spend a better $25. Thank you again, Moebius!!


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The two kits are just different in so many ways (not just physical). The PL/Aurora kit was THE Seaview kit for over 40 years. Its a classic in its own right. I had the first and second versions of the Aurora kit as a kid, and to me, that is still "THE" Seaview kit in my collection. On the other hand, the Modebius kit is a model of the real filming miniature. Its very well proportioned, detailed, etc. Overall its an excellent, accurate kit. It compliments the Aurora kit nicely. I wouldn't say it replaces it (for one its the TV sub not the movie sub so they aren't the same sub...). They are just different.


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

I understand talking about this, but the old kits will always be in our hearts. I really loved the old Aurora Flying Sub, I have very fond memories of that kit, am I gonna pay Cult 80 bucks for one?..No.
The PL Seaview was the only game in town, I bought the first one I saw....Do I want another? No. Fond memories, but I will let them stay memories. In a way it's like a kit you built a long time ago, your skills have changed, the model is a little embarassing next to your latest build, but you keep it. It's a memory..it's a kit you liked enough to keep over the years....

These kits don't/can't really "compete" with or replace each other. It's just new things coming out that help us remember.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

The aurora PL seaview will always be in a class and time of its own...and of course is the movie version..the moebius and pl kits are totally different renditions..I dont place one in a better or worse class than the other..

Z


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

Zorro said:


> And it doesn't hurt to acknowledge that, if not for Aurora - Polar Lights, Moebius, Monarch, and indeed this very board never would have seen the light of day.


amen!:thumbsup:

As well..as these new companies like polar lights, and to thier credit, made thier impact by repopping the kits that were not big sellers originally for aurora...thats another reason I hate hearing disparaging remarks about the quality of aurora kits by some that had started thier own careers in the field thanks to the resurgence of the popularity of these kits..but that seemed to have diminished, and companies like Monarch, and Moebius, are paying great homage to aurora...The nosferatu , for example, had I not known, I would have thought it was produced by aurora...it was that good and faithful to the quality, part fit, boxart and all of the good old aurora days..


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

starseeker said:


> _There is a huge but still very subtle difference between the two kits. The Moebius kit is much crisper and has the lines and shapes that we all wanted from the Aurora kit. The bulging fs bay on the 1/128 kit has been pretty much corrected on this kit. In the smaller scale, the nose looks closer to the correct shape when viewed from above, so no correction needed there. The sonar domes are still a little long and a little far back and the prop tubes are still the wrong shape and too far apart.
> Fixing the Moebius won't be as much work as fixing the Aurora, but there's still some work to be done, if you're so inclined. _
> 
> Wow, hate to burst a bubble finding fault were there is none, but a little research clearly shows that the Moebius kit got the engine tubes and sonar bubbles RIGHT. Unless the photos of the actual filming miniature are wrong.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

RSN said:


> starseeker said:
> 
> 
> > _There is a huge but still very subtle difference between the two kits. The Moebius kit is much crisper _
> ...


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

RSN;3010149Wow said:


> Not talking about the side profile of the prop tubes - those are close - but the spacing from behind. I can't find my good copies and I really don't care to take the time to do this more exactly, so these overlays aren't exact, but they do show what I mean. This is the big Moebius kit over a photo of the 17' while David Merriman was restoring it. The back of the big Moebius Seaview reminds me a little of an unfixed bulldog. The little version seems just a scaled down version, the extra wide spacing less noticable because its smaller.
> The sonar domes... again, a quick and dirty overlay of a photo of the small Moebius this time on top of the 17'. Because the 1/350 is so much smaller, the difference in length isn't as obvious on the model. (Still think they're a little too far back, too, but maybe that's just a hold over from the 8 1/2') (I know, the angles in these photos suck. But there are zillions of photos of the 17' out there. Try your own overlays and if you can actually make one match, please post. (And I'm not even going to talk about the length of the deck or the placement of the sail. Both varied between the 8 window and the 4 window and the 4', 8 1/2' and 17' versions of each.)
> But these are all little challenges that some crazy fool modelers love to play with. I'm just pleased a punch with the 1/350 Seaview. It's Christmas come early.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

I've never been much of a rivet counter and while I respect those that are both Moebius Seaviews look the part to me. Bottom line is they look like the Seaview and thats what is important to me. Taking out calipers and doing screen overlays to compare the kits and the miniatures is just not my thing I guess. I watched Voyage when it was on in the sixties with my dad I like most of you fell in love with this fictional beauty and the adventures as seen on TV. When Aurora released the Seaview and I opened it one Christmas morning I was in heaven! I still have that model in my collection as well as several 75 rereleases and it still holds a sentimental value for me. For it's time the Aurora kit was the jewel in my model collection. Yes side by side the new 350 and Aurora are quite different. The Moebius is by far the more sleek and faithfull to the seventeen foot miniture. We must remember however that the Aurora kit was based on the four foot miniture was a faithfull recreation of that version of the sub. By virtue of this you really cant't fault either version of this icon of the sea. I admit that my personal favorite is the seventeen foot Seaview and therefore I love the new Moebius version but the Aurora still looks good to me as well:thumbsup: Just my two cents worth!:wave:


----------



## RogueJ (Oct 29, 2000)

Well put HabuHunter. I've loved this baby since I saw it grace the movie screen during its first release in the 60's. My favorite is still the 8 window version. To me it has the sleekness and grace the refit doesn't. But hey, they're both the Seaview. Who am I to complain. Now if Moebius were to put out a movie version it wouldn't hurt my feelings. Like Dave has never heard that before.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

starseeker said:


> Not talking about the side profile of the prop tubes - those are close - but the spacing from behind.


I measured the 17 ft (1/24 scale) model when it was at David Merriman's, and I used those measurements to correct the 1/350 model. Here's a photo of the aft end of the propulsion tubes, scaled to to measurements I made of the actual tubes:










And here's the same photo, rescaled to 1/350. If you'll check the distance between the tubes on your 1/350 model, you'll notice that it matches the distance shown in this photo.










I also revised the sail so it matches the proportions of the 17-footer's. If you look closely, you'll see a slight curvature in the upper half of the sail's leading edge, the same as on the 17-footer.

Gary


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I stand corrected. What a wonderful surprise, yesterday morning, as I couldn't resist (I don't get this kit till Christmas) and peeled off some of the tape that I had dry assembled it with and started cementing some bits together. The taped parts were just loose enough that in this scale they looked exactly spaced as on the 128. But cemented, they fit beautifully. And looked perfect. 
I was expecting this kit to be a scaled down version of the 128 but there seem to be a lot of tiny differences. I don't know if it's just the corrected bulge that was the fs bay or what but the downward curvature of the manta fins doesn't seem as pronounced. The main viewports don't have the pronounced upward slant of the 128. The nose doesn't seem as pointed from above. I don't know if these were changed or if they're not as obvious in this scale but whatever it is, this Seaview really looks like the Seaview. Thank God Gary that you're a rivet counter!
Tho I loved it, I remember being a little disappointed the Aurora kit. Voyage was into its second season when the Aurora kit came out and while any Seaview kit was a great thing, I really wanted the 2nd season version of it. 
This is the nicest Seaview kit yet. The shapes are great. The fit is great. Not only is it the Seaview kit I Really wanted way back then, it's also small enough and simple enough that any 7th grader could build a great model from it (why was the Aurora kit black???). Given that most manufacturers now seem to demand an engineering degree from builders, this is a great way to try to expand your modeling base and to try to build a new generation of customers. 
And even the box art is great. 
Kudos all around. 
Now how to explain on Christmas morning that this model took only 14 minutes to build...


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

starseeker said:


> I was expecting this kit to be a scaled down version of the 128 but there seem to be a lot of tiny differences. I don't know if it's just the corrected bulge that was the fs bay or what but the downward curvature of the manta fins doesn't seem as pronounced. The main viewports don't have the pronounced upward slant of the 128. The nose doesn't seem as pointed from above. I don't know if these were changed or if they're not as obvious in this scale but whatever it is, this Seaview really looks like the Seaview. Thank God Gary that you're a rivet counter!


I was brought on board (no pun intended) the 1/128 Seaview project too late to catch every problem, but I tried to fix everything on the 1/350 version. Making the corrections to a prototype that was located half a world away was sometimes easy, but other times, was problematic. Armed with a Dremel tool & some putty, I could have made some corrections in 5 minutes, but instead, I had to send multiple emails & photos showing what should be done. In the end, though, like you said, the 1/350 kit LOOKS like the Seaview.

Gary


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Gary, I think there should be a rule established that no science fiction model of any kind should be mastered without your final approval. That Moebius is using both you and Ron Gross is one of the only two sane events to occur worldwide in the 21st century so far. I only wish Polar Lights would have used you a Whole Lot More with their 1/350 Enterprise. Your partial drawings on-line are what I kept going back to over and over again in my builds. Thank you for all your efforts on our behalf.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

starseeker said:


> Gary, I think there should be a rule established that no science fiction model of any kind should be mastered without your final approval.


You've got a PM.

Gary


----------



## Seadragon7 (Oct 28, 2009)

In my train of thought, based on the movie version and the TV version, who is to say within the lore of the storyline that the Seaview went through several refits. Similar to the Star Trek Saga where the Enterprise was refitted for the first movie. When I display both subs I use that to describe the differences. With the Aurora/Polar kit and the markings underneath for the flying sub could be the first attempt at refit. Remember all the flaws in filming the series. As a kid, it didn't matter, now with the DVDs of the series available and I watch them it's hysterical. One shot will have the movie eight window sub moving slowly through the depths and then on a dime the ship will get attacked with the latest monster of the week and there is the 4 window sub. Stock footage used to save time and budget. So I dont hold the model accountable for acuracy when the show itself was horrible at it. It was wonderful science fiction and I was glad to get a less expensive repo of the Aurora to go with the new one. My only gripe about the new 350 scale kit was no flying sub. At least give me the option to display one.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The 1/350 Flying Subs are now available- I have been waiting for this so I can start my sub.
Regarding the stock footage- it is always jaring to me when they switch SFX like taht. TOS Trek did the same thing with their models and even George Lucas did it with the Empire Stikes Back (though his was not reused footage but swapping different models (with a lot of differences) of the Star Destroyers in the escape from Hoth scene).

What worked great in a one time TV or Theater viewing really shows up when studied with DVDs these days.

.


----------

