# Sci Fi & Fantasy Modeller #25



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

This mag includes an article by Gary Kerr titled "Building a Better Seaview." He describes the changes made to the 1/128th 4-window model to create the "new" 1/128th 8-window. Photos show him cutting up and altering a 4-window model. Exactly what I needed to find out which flaws were fixed. Especially the aft end (e.g. propulsion tubes), as the 4-window requires extreme measures to fix.

The online preview has only the first two pages online, so I have searched for back issues. The only one I found was on ebay:

Issue 25

This is from "FabGear" and is a whopping $51.90 with shipping!

Can anyone with this issue enlighten me as to what fixes were applied when Gary created the 8-window version?

Tom


----------



## Jokerman (Oct 6, 2004)

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Modeller-vol-25_p_2061.html


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

taneal1 said:


> This is from "FabGear" and is a whopping $51.90 with shipping!
> 
> Tom


Check the 'sold' items, those all went for $24.95! I suppose he's trying to find some fish to fall for that crazy price!!

Carl-


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

taneal1 said:


> This mag includes an article by Gary Kerr titled "Building a Better Seaview." He describes the changes made to the 1/128th 4-window model to create the "new" 1/128th 8-window. Photos show him cutting up and altering a 4-window model.
> 
> Can anyone with this issue enlighten me as to what fixes were applied when Gary created the 8-window version?
> 
> Tom


I fixed the shape of the manta fins and the front end of the upper deck, and also totally redesigned the conning tower to make it more accurate. Unfortunately he budget did not allow me to correct the shape/orientation of the propulsion tubes.

Gary


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

THANKS Jokerman!

I checked my "browser history" and I DID go to that site, I can't imagine how I missed it...

Tom


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Thanks for the the response, Gary. Nothing like hearing directly from the original source. If you don't mind, I have a few questions...



Gary K said:


> I fixed the shape of the manta fins and the front end of the upper deck, and also totally redesigned the conning tower to make it more accurate.


EXCELLENT. 

Q1. Are the nose and sail scaled versions of the 17' miniature?

Q2. Was there anything else you would have changed on the nose or sail if you had the budget?



> Unfortunately he budget did not allow me to correct the shape/orientation of the propulsion tubes.


Many here, including myself, are planning to correct this problem to the best of our abilities. 

Q3. Are you able to share the correct information regarding the size, shape, and orientation of the tubes?

According to a forum member's research, the taper on the aft end of the (1/128th TV/FS kit) hull is too wide.

Q4. Do you agree with this, and if so were you able to correct the problem?

Thanks again for your response, and of course for actually implementing the current fixes to the 8-Window Seaview (my personal favorite),

Tom


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

taneal1 said:


> Thanks for the the response, Gary. Nothing like hearing directly from the original source. If you don't mind, I have a few questions...
> 
> Q1. Are the nose and sail scaled versions of the 17' miniature?


The sail is mostly based on my measurements & tracings of the 17-footer's sail. That sail is fairly plain, so I added some details that were on the full-scale mock-up of the sail from the movie. The manta fins were largely based on the portside fin on my casting of the nose of the 8.5 ft Flying Sub version (remember - the bow fins are lopsided on the 8.5 ft model), but were tweaked to better match the design of the fins on the studio plans & in screen caps from the movie. 




taneal1 said:


> Q2. Was there anything else you would have changed on the nose or sail if you had the budget?


On the movie version, I was fairly happy with the nose & sail, but I really wanted to fix the propulsion tubes. The nose of the Flying Sub version needs major, major work!



taneal1 said:


> Q3. Are you able to share the correct information regarding the size, shape, and orientation of the tubes?
> 
> According to a forum member's research, the taper on the aft end of the (1/128th TV/FS kit) hull is too wide.Q4. Do you agree with this, and if so were you able to correct the problem?



Much as I wanted to, I wasn't able to correct anything on the aft half of the model. I haven't had the time/reason to study to taper on the hull, but I believe it was based on the studio blueprints (assuming the Chinese followed the plans exactly). I can tell you that on the 1/24 scale 17-footer, the ends of the tubes do toe inward a bit. The I.D. of the ends of the tubes was 6", while their O.D. was 6.5" The distance between centers was 10.3"




taneal1 said:


> Thanks again for your response, and of course for actually implementing the current fixes to the 8-Window Seaview (my personal favorite),
> 
> Tom


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Gary K said:


> Much as I wanted to, I wasn't able to correct anything on the aft half of the model. I haven't had the time/reason to study to taper on the hull, but I believe it was based on the studio blueprints (assuming the Chinese followed the plans exactly).


Per the aft end taper, part of me is glad, because I'll enjoy doing the major rework - but part of me thinks I'll screw it up and be frustrated. However, I AM going to give it my best shot.:thumbsup:

The propulsion tubes are going to be tough. I've just started planning, and it seems a scratchbuild would be the best way to go... Possibly turn the cone at the front, and add tubing? I'd like to keep at least the rear half of the tube hollow.



> I can tell you that on the 1/24 scale 17-footer, the ends of the tubes do toe inward a bit. The I.D. of the ends of the tubes was 6", while their O.D. was 6.5" The distance between centers was 10.3"


The above info is VERY helpful -- much thanks. 



> I fixed the...front end of the upper deck


Forgot to ask about this. Did you extend it further forward, or was their something else done?

Thanks again,

Tom


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

taneal1 said:


> Forgot to ask about this. Did you extend it further forward, or was their something else done?
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Tom


I extended the upper deck to where it should be on the movie Seaview and made sure that the limber holes matched the ref photos. As you probably know, the bow gained a few inches in length when the models were modified into the Flying Sub version, but the upper deck stayed the same length. Off the top of my tired head, I believe this makes the 4-window Seaview about an inch longer than the movie version at 1/128 scale. 

The 1/128 scale movie Seaview kit is the correct length, but the Moebius 4-window Seaview should actually have been an inch longer. The original design team was not aware that the 4-window version was supposed to be longer than the movie version, so they made the kit of 4-window sub as long as the movie Seaview in the studio plans. Oops. 

Gary


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

Gary K said:


> I extended the upper deck to where it should be on the movie Seaview and made sure that the limber holes matched the ref photos.


You have certainly done a thorough job on the nose and sail. Your diligence is VERY much appreciated!

Well, it's time to "go aft..."

IMHO the first item to clarify:
Hobbytalk member Starseeker: "The taper of the back of the hull is not quite tapered enough. About 1/2 way down the taper, at about 4 1/2" from the back tip of the tail, the model is 2.4" (62.6mm) in diameter. It should be 2.0" (52.6mm). The circumference of the hull at this point is 7.54" and it should be 6.28". That means that in order to get the right shape of the taper at the back of the hull, about 1.25" of circumference should be removed from here."

I have no reason to doubt Starseeker, and his accurized Seaview is SPECTACULAR, but I'd just hate to do all that work, and discover it made the model far less accurate.

*************: "The model presented here was done to the actual dimensions and contours that I personally took from the 17 foot Seaview miniature when measured on three different occasions. These are simply inarguable as they are "hard numbers" double and even triple checked at the time."

Lubliner does not specifically mention this error in his extremely detailed accurizing thread of the Moebius 1/350th (and 1/128th) versions. But he focuses mainly on the 1/350th which may not have this problem.

DAVID MERRIMAN & RICK KNOROWSKY: "I had the seventeen foot miniature in my custody for over five years! During that time I had the good fortune of meeting Rick Knorowsky; who, during the miniatures stay here, lofted an excellent set of orthographic drawings off it, complete with sections – they today stand as the definitive ‘document of record’ of how this particular miniature was arranged. Of course, Rick’s drawing became my prime ‘go-to’ reference as I worked to upgrade the DeBoer kit."

Certainly Lubliner, Merryman and Knorowsky could resolve this issue. 

I have attempted to get this question passed on to Lubliner as he doesn't seem to be a recent presence on this forum. If this fails I'll try Merriman over on his sub site. I have no idea how to contact Knorowsky, and I don't believe he's ever published his drawings.

Thanks for any input,

Tom


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Someone sent me what were purported to be the Knorowsky drawings and David Merriman conformed that these were in fact the actual Knorowsky plans. They matched virtually perfectly with the blueprints and as they had been sent to me in confidence I used the blueprints, not his plans, for my drawings of the 17'. And when I say virtually, I mean within a reasonably sharp pencil line's width on a 4' drawing. But given the inevitable errors in scanning, printing, and monitors when viewing and reproducing, my drawings of the 17' are as close to the Knorowsky drawings as anything will be, including the Knorowsky drawings themselves. Hope this helps. 
And before anyone asks, no. They were a favor in confidence. You'll just have to trust me on that one.


----------



## taneal1 (Jul 27, 2014)

starseeker said:


> Someone sent me what were purported to be the Knorowsky drawings and David Merriman conformed that these were in fact the actual Knorowsky plans. They matched virtually perfectly with the blueprints and as they had been sent to me in confidence I used the blueprints, not his plans, for my drawings of the 17'. And when I say virtually, I mean within a reasonably sharp pencil line's width on a 4' drawing. But given the inevitable errors in scanning, printing, and monitors when viewing and reproducing, my drawings of the 17' are as close to the Knorowsky drawings as anything will be, including the Knorowsky drawings themselves. Hope this helps.


Helps? YES! In fact, there is no longer ANY question regarding the accuracy of the FOX(?) blueprints that you used for your drawings.
And again, THANK YOU for sharing the results!



> And before anyone asks, no. They were a favor in confidence. You'll just have to trust me on that one.


Well said.

Tom


----------

