# NEW! Moebius 1/72 scale SKIPJACK test shot photos!



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

I was just forwarded these photos -- looks like a nice BIG kit, ready for RC!

--Henry


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Holy cow ... she's HUGE!!!!


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

ryoga said:


> Holy cow ... she's HUGE!!!!


Yep -- this one is no bathtub toy for the kiddies!

--H


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Looks pretty simple too!

Okay, first aftermarket accessory should be a complete reactor room, with a periscope to view it thru, just like the Aurora kit from the 60s.


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

Either this sub is very big or that woman very small.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

I'll take three.

Skipjack, Scorpion and Polidor.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

John P said:


> Looks pretty simple too!
> 
> Okay, first aftermarket accessory should be a complete reactor room, with a periscope to view it thru, just like the Aurora kit from the 60s.


Too late - the first aftermarket accessory is shown in the last photo: unless I'm mistaken, that's David Merriman's radio control drive system.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> Too late - the first aftermarket accessory is shown in the last photo: unless I'm mistaken, that's David Merriman's radio control drive system.


You know...I think that's David Merriman's shop.

But I don't know if I'd really qualify that Water Tight Cylinder as the the first aftermarket for the Skipjack. Dave has been selling versions of the WTC for many, many years. It may be that this particular one just fits.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

zike said:


> You know...I think that's David Merriman's shop.
> 
> But I don't know if I'd really qualify that Water Tight Cylinder as the the first aftermarket for the Skipjack. Dave has been selling versions of the WTC for many, many years. It may be that this particular one just fits.


This is not David's shop,this is Bruce Toh's place,he lives in Malayisa and his wife is the one holding the model.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

falcondesigns said:


> This is not David's shop,this is Bruce Toh's place,he lives in Malayisa and his wife is the one holding the model.


Ah...OK...I was thrown by all of the model sub gear in the room like the tools and box marked "LJN 52 & Kaitens" .


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

Just how big is that sub anyway.I wonder why Moebius decided to release this sub in particular in such a big scale.I your opinion,do you guys think that this sub will be popular enough and make sufficient sales to justify it's release.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Its a standard ship/sub scale which is good. it will go with the Revell 1/72 subs.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

xsavoie said:


> Just how big is that sub anyway.I wonder why Moebius decided to release this sub in particular in such a big scale.I your opinion,do you guys think that this sub will be popular enough and make sufficient sales to justify it's release.



Moebius now COMPLETELY OWNS the market on serious, plastic model nuclear sub kits. I think this kit has great prospects for long term success because there is literally no competition.

Most nuclear subs have been available in tiny 1/350 and 1/700 scale and few oddball scales. This 1/72 kit establishes a whole new market segment untouched by anybody else. Revell broke ground in this area with a couple of 1/72 WWII boats but Moebius owns the nuke market.

The Skipjack was original, archetypal, teardrop nuclear sub that we all know today. It has great historical significance.

We can't think of this the way we think of the current, trendy sci-fi kits. Model ships appeal to a group that doesn't get hung up on the newest, hottest thing. Something like this can sell for decades. Revell has been reissuing their 1/72 Flower Class Corvette since Nixon was President.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I can't believe how much work this is going to be. As what's the point of having a 1/72 scale Polidor without a 1/72 scale Seaview to go with it? Sigh.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Is that thing 1/25 scale or something else???????????????????????


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

Bruce Toh's Wife?..I thought that was* Henry*....who knew?

Steve


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

zike said:


> You know...I think that's David Merriman's shop.
> 
> But I don't know if I'd really qualify that Water Tight Cylinder as the the first aftermarket for the Skipjack. Dave has been selling versions of the WTC for many, many years. It may be that this particular one just fits.


I might be in error,I went to Bruce's FB page,he said he got the pictures from here.My mistake.


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

LOL .... is not me ... but I really wished that was. I shared the image at my FB cause that is one really neat kit from Moebius 

Its also for the benefit of ship modelers from Thailand and Indonesia who don't come here but they are in my FB list of friends


----------



## ilan benita (May 7, 2008)

Very nice it looks good. Successfully. Project


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

zike said:


> Revell has been reissuing their 1/72 Flower Class Corvette since Nixon was President.


The Corvette kit was done by Matchbox and came out in the late 1970s. It has only been sold more recently by Revell AG after they purchased the Matchbox name and tooling in I think the 1990s


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I cannot WAIT to get this...


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

irishtrek said:


> Is that thing 1/25 scale or something else???????????????????????


 

Um, I believe a 1/72 scale sub scales out to 1/72. :freak:


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

Just Plain Al said:


> Um, I believe a 1/72 scale sub scales out to 1/72. :freak:


Hank has to get an add-on 'LIKE' button for this board!!


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

Will someone please supply the overall diameter (beam) and length? From these photos, I'd say this would probably go with the original 51 1/2" Seaview rather well.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Probably would--I think it's around three feet long.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Well, it took about 8 seconds to google "submarine Skipjack".

Length: 251.7 feet
Beam: 31.5 feet

Which translates to a model that is:

41.95" long
5.25" max diameter

Add a 2% fudge factor to accommodate differing sources .


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Just Plain Al said:


> Um, I believe a 1/72 scale sub scales out to 1/72. :freak:


Close enough!!!:tongue:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

djnick66 said:


> The Corvette kit was done by Matchbox and came out in the late 1970s. It has only been sold more recently by Revell AG after they purchased the Matchbox name and tooling in I think the 1990s


And I have one I'm never gonna build, in the Matchbox box if anybody wants one!


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

zike said:


> Well, it took about 8 seconds to google "submarine Skipjack".
> 
> Length: 251.7 feet
> Beam: 31.5 feet
> ...


Sorry for coming off like this, BUT I am not asking for someone to look something up and do some calculations. I am asking for the physical size so that I myself may determine the scale. 

A Word of advice: Do not presume a model kit is accurate. Model kits are very rarely dimensionally accurate. For example, that small Seaview is stated as 1/350th scale, when using its' hull diameter as the mathematical constant, in reality it actually works out to 1/355th scale. Close enough? That depends.

I can see in the photo by I believe it is Dave Merimann's wife, the approximate size, but I'd like to know if it's at all close to 1/8" to the foot scale. That is the scale to which the 51 1/2" original Seaview was built. If this kit is done to 1:96 (_that _is 1/8" to the foot scale) then it may be used in a "descending wall display" with the original Seaview miniature. Then again, it may not be accurate in beam v. length. Hence my initial request.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Untill we have the physical article in hand, I'd say dementions would have to come from Dave Merriman, or Moebius themselves, as none of us have one yet.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Super 7 said:


> ...but I'd like to know if it's at all close to 1/8" to the foot scale. That is the scale to which the 51 1/2" original Seaview was built. If this kit is done to 1:96 (_that _is 1/8" to the foot scale) then it may be used in a "descending wall display" with the original Seaview miniature. Then again, it may not be accurate in beam v. length. Hence my initial request.


Is your post a joke?

It's a 1/72 scale Skipjack.

Why is this complicated?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I think the 41" estimate may be accurate--I remember that it was going to be at least as long as the 1/128 inch Seaview kit, possibly longer. But we're not going to know until it's in our hands...


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

I'm not sure why there is a question involved here.

The Skipjack is a real submarine of defined size. 

The Seaview is an Irwin Allen fantasy.

We know the scale of the Skipjack. Moebius told us it's 1/72 and the that's in the thread title.

It's like asking "How big is a 1/72 scale B-17?" We don't have to ask because we know how big a B-17 is.

So we know the exact size of the Moebius Skipjack. We don't need to wait until it's in our hands.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

The Trade Show photos that were initially posted showed Seaview and Skipjack in a glass display case with upper and lower shelves, even with the distortion from the angle of the shot, it was very apparent the Skipjack was a lot bigger than Seaview kit. Perhaps Mr. Merriman will chime in as he visits here infrequently.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> The Trade Show photos that were initially posted showed Seaview and Skipjack in a glass display case with upper and lower shelves, even with the distortion from the angle of the shot, it was very apparent the Skipjack was a lot bigger than Seaview kit. Perhaps Mr. Merriman will chime in as he visits here infrequently.


I'm not sure what Dave could chime in about?

We know the Seaview is 39" long, has about a 3" beam and spans around 7 3/4" at the forward mantas.

We know the Skipjack is about 42" long with a 5 1/4" beam.

There isn't really anything to add.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Super 7 said:


> ...For example, that small Seaview is stated as 1/350th scale, when using its' hull diameter as the mathematical constant, in reality it actually works out to 1/355th scale. Close enough? That depends...


That works out to less than 3/16" per foot difference (at full size). I'd call that close enough. :wave:


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

**** actual size of skipjack test shot ****

I just heard from David Merriman -- Here is what he says:

The SKIPJACK test-shot dimensions, Henry:

*Length, 42" overall (bow to tip of dunce-cap)*
*Max Beam, 5 1/4"*

There you go, folks.

--Henry


----------



## steve123 (Feb 9, 2009)

Just cuz I said you look like a girl doesn't mean you can pick on my dunce cap.

some folks are so sensitive...

Steve


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

steve123 said:


> Just cuz I said you look like a girl doesn't mean you can pick on my dunce cap.
> 
> some folks are so sensitive...
> 
> Steve


Funny boy!


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

zike said:


> Is your post a joke?
> 
> It's a 1/72 scale Skipjack.
> 
> Why is this complicated?


Why does this question bother you so much?


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

zike said:


> Is your post a joke?
> 
> It's a 1/72 scale Skipjack.
> 
> Why is this complicated?





falcondesigns said:


> Why does this question bother you so much?


Lets drop this, OK?

--Henry


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The 4' Seaview was /96 scale and the Moebius Skipjack is 1/72 scale. But as the Skipjack was never used in Voyage, that shouldn't matter. No dimensions were ever given for the Polidor - it was just a sub shaped like the Skipjack, much like the Ohio is shaped like a longer version of the Skipjack. My notes from some forgotten source say that the Polidor miniature was 31" long (no beam, tho' - somehow it seemed the Polidor was a little fat compared to the Spipjack) which would work out to a Skipjack scaled almost exactly to 1/96 scale. Perfect for display with a 51" Seaview.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Super 7 said:


> I can see in the photo by I believe it is Dave Merimann's wife, the approximate size, but I'd like to know if it's at all close to 1/8" to the foot scale. That is the scale to which the 51 1/2" original Seaview was built. If this kit is done to 1:96 (_that _is 1/8" to the foot scale) then it may be used in a "descending wall display" with the original Seaview miniature. Then again, it may not be accurate in beam v. length. Hence my initial request.


It's clearly stated as 1/72, which is 1/6" to the foot.



Ductapeforever said:


> Untill we have the physical article in hand, I'd say *dementions *would have to come from Dave Merriman, or Moebius themselves, as none of us have one yet.


It's "dimensions", but "dimentia" may fit this thread just as well!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John P said:


> It's clearly stated as 1/72, which is 1/6" to the foot.
> 
> 
> 
> It's "dimensions", but "dimentia" may fit this thread just as well!


Thanks John, my ex loves to point out this stuff.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ductapeforever said:


> Thanks John, my ex loves to point out this stuff.


I can't help myself. I do PPT presentations, posters, newsletters, etc all day. I HAVE to spell correctly, and proofreading is second nature.


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

John P said:


> I can't halp myself. I do PPT presentations, pesters, newsladders, etc awl day. I HAVE to spell incorrectly, and proofreaking is second nurture.


Really? 

--Henry


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John P said:


> I can't help myself. I do PPT presentations, posters, newsletters, etc all day. I HAVE to spell correctly, and proofreading is second nature.





John, I have a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering, Math ,Science (Any Dicipline), and History,....a piece of cake. Spelling and the Queens English,......uhh not so much!LOL


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Looks like a nice kit.
I saw it at ihobby and it is impressive.

But, its a bit large for me.
Hopefully someday they'll do it in 1/144 and 1/350 which are common sub scales.


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

ClubTepes said:


> Looks like a nice kit.
> I saw it at ihobby and it is impressive.
> 
> But, its a bit large for me.
> Hopefully someday they'll do it in 1/144 and 1/350 which are common sub scales.


Agree ... but can you imagine the looks on people's face when they see this baby assembled, painted and on display :thumbsup:


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

zike said:


> Is your post a joke?
> 
> It's a 1/72 scale Skipjack.
> 
> Why is this complicated?


No that is not a joke. Now that we all know those numbers, let's see how accurate it is to 1/72 when it's released, okay? There you go, sarcasm for sarcasm. 

By the way, styrene is without question, the wrong material for this application (R/C.) At minimum ABS is required or preferably still, polycarbonate.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I for one am happy this is styrene. I have no intention of making mine R/C. I spent part of my Naval career alongside several of these boats, I have hundreds of detailed photos both inside and out and the size will allow for a complete and detailed interior. Can't wait....


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

zike said:


> I'm not sure why there is a question involved here.
> 
> The Skipjack is a real submarine of defined size.
> 
> ...


Actually you are incorrect. Injection molded tooling of hobby kits far too often omits the shrink rate factors for a particular resin. On something this size that could be quite significant. Also who ever it is who does the tooling determines the size, all claims of scale aside. 

I clearly remember a certain Airfix 1/24th scale P 51D Mustang that's still sold to this day, whose fuselage and wings are 1/4" (actual measure) too thick yet the top view and elevation are correct. 

That 17' 2," 16" beam Irwin Allen Fantasy thing known as the Seaview actually did and still does exist. It is the prototype for the models of it. When a Litton Industries-built U.S. Navy Destroyer constructed in the 1970's ended up being 12 feet longer than it's blue prints...... well there you go!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Next to the Nautilus (Used to go visit it in Conn. when I was a kid!) the Skipjack is one of my favorite real subs, but I would have no place to put it. 2 1/128 Seaviews and 2 1/350 Enterprises are going to need a place to live.....and when my wife sees them all built I may need one too!!! Great work Frank, keep 'em coming!!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

Well, now that I have those dimensions.... NUTS! It's too big!


----------



## crazy mike (Aug 26, 1999)

Sooo. how much does this beast run cash wise?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

About a Hundred Bucks at 'Entertainment Earth'on pre-order.


----------



## ryoga (Oct 6, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> About a Hundred Bucks at 'Entertainment Earth'on pre-order.


Suddenly this kit has become too large for me  ... "Nooooooooooooo ...."


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

g_xii said:


> Really?
> 
> --Henry


ACK! :lol: Well, it's a real word, spelled correctly!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Super 7 said:


> By the way, styrene is without question, the wrong material for this application (R/C.) At minimum ABS is required or preferably still, polycarbonate.


I'm fairly sure the primary application here is "plastic display model kit." That it happens to be big enough for R/C is probably secondary.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John P said:


> I'm fairly sure the primary application here is "plastic display model kit." That it happens to be big enough for R/C is probably secondary.


Since David merriman designed it for Frank, I think R/C is the primary and static display model secondary.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

For those interested, here is the actual interior layout from Naval publications.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> For those interested, here is the actual interior layout from Naval publications.


Now THAT would be a fun build!


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> For those interested, here is the actual interior layout from Naval publications.


Thanks a million!

I've been looking all over for that!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Here is a cutaway of the Skipjack class.....


----------



## btbrush (Sep 20, 2010)

Super 7 said:


> Actually you are incorrect. Injection molded tooling of hobby kits far too often omits the shrink rate factors for a particular resin. On something this size that could be quite significant. Also who ever it is who does the tooling determines the size, all claims of scale aside.
> 
> I clearly remember a certain Airfix 1/24th scale P 51D Mustang that's still sold to this day, whose fuselage and wings are 1/4" (actual measure) too thick yet the top view and elevation are correct.
> 
> That 17' 2," 16" beam Irwin Allen Fantasy thing known as the Seaview actually did and still does exist. It is the prototype for the models of it. When a Litton Industries-built U.S. Navy Destroyer constructed in the 1970's ended up being 12 feet longer than it's blue prints...... well there you go!


Tool makers build what they're given. Garbage in, garbage out. And any model kit designer worth his salt is gonna factor in .006/inch shrinkage for styrene and the correct shrinkage for ABS or whatever. Unless the tooling company uses byrilium cast molds then the shrinkage in minimal. Most errors stem from a myriad of conflicting references, or a designer who figures, "It's close enough, who'll notice.". I remember having to also factor in how much our blueprint machine would stretch the paper, and add overall control dimensions.
All that being said, It's a great price for a really big sub kit, but I'm quickly running out of room.


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

*SKIPJACK decal art-work creation*

Here is some information forwarded to me from David Merriman:


*These are some shots showing creation of the art-work for the decals that will be produced and will accompany the Moebius 1/72 SKIPJACK kit.*


*Blocking out the hull-numbers (which appear on either side of the 1/72 scale Moebius SKIPJACK sail). This initial pencil work done using a boiler-plate letter-number font guide I copied from the technical library aboard the USS DANIEL WEBSTER (SSBN 626) about 40 years ago. At the time I was in charge of deck-gang and our in-port job was hull preservation, so draft-numbers and other external features aboard the boat was our responsibility, hence this document. *

*Good thing I'm such a pack-rat. This and other documents have served me well in my career as a Model Maker since the Navy days.*














*After blocking out the hull-numbers I started in on the inking. This and the other pieces of art-work, most of them hand drafted, all in support of the kits decal sheet. Hull name graphics are under the drawing-board -- I did those on the computer; the names of the six boats of the class, including the mythic, POLIDOR, for the SF fan-boys out there.*

*Rivet counting ... indeed!*













*At this point in the inking phase I remembered that Rose was in the house, sitting on her butt, playing legend of Zelda: twilight princess (personal fave). What the hell was I doing wasting my time with this grunt work?!...*













*There! Child-labor law? ... we need no stinking Child-labor law! (insert whip-cracking sound here). TV time for Grandpa!*













*Doing the math to work out the ratios between artwork and desired character size for the model. I strive for a four or five-to-one ratio -- it tightens up the character density and definition upon reduction.*










Thanks to David Merriman for sharing this, and there is more to come!

--Henry


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

There's an ad for it in the new Fine Scale Modeler! "1/72 scale plastic assembly kit" due in June.


----------



## Whiteraven_2001 (Apr 12, 2008)

zike said:


> Moebius now COMPLETELY OWNS the market on serious, plastic model nuclear sub kits.


That seems a little overenthusiastic to me, based on one kit. I hope, however, this spurs a race to release an accurate, injection-molded _USS Nautilus_. It's an iconic vessel, which should have received better treatment over the years.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Whiteraven_2001 said:


> That seems a little overenthusiastic to me, based on one kit.



But that ONE kit is the ONLY kit in the market.

If you've got the only kit kit in your market segment, you own it.

Until someone else comes out with big injection molded nuke (big enough for RC), I stand by that statement. If Trumpeter, Hobby Boss or anybody else comes out with a 1/72 Nautilus, Permit or Sturgeon, I will retract my comment.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

They _completely _own the market on nuclear subs, except for all the OTHER companies that make models of nuclear subs.

A week later: Yeah, but, they own the market on nuclear sub kits THAT BIG.

:lol:


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

*Beryllium Tooling over "There."*



btbrush said:


> Tool makers build what they're given. Garbage in, garbage out. And any model kit designer worth his salt is gonna factor in .006/inch shrinkage for styrene and the correct shrinkage for ABS or whatever. Unless the tooling company uses byrilium cast molds then the shrinkage in minimal. Most errors stem from a myriad of conflicting references, or a designer who figures, "It's close enough, who'll notice.". I remember having to also factor in how much our blueprint machine would stretch the paper, and add overall control dimensions.
> All that being said, It's a great price for a really big sub kit, but I'm quickly running out of room.



WELL, let me let you guys in on a "secret:" Over "there" when you hand them a perfect square to replicate in low volume quantities, such as 100,000 pieces or so, there are so many corners that get cut, by the time you take delivery, you've got 100,000 perfectly circular discs. By the way, that shrink factor is .005" for G.P. styrene and .006" for standard quality (average % of butadiene) A.B.S. Acrylic varies, but much more for Acetol (Delrin) as it continues to out-gas for a few years.

What I'm talking about is the virtual monopoly of places over "there" that say and do as you've said: *"or a designer who figures, 'It's close enough, who'll notice.'" * THAT is the rule over "there." And that's especially the case with "Toys," which thank you Mr. Clinton, all hobby products are classified as being. 

I have been "over there" four times setting up production in injection molding plants on tooling I designed and built. That specific place (they did the Danbury Mint, Bond Aston Martins as 1/24th diecasts) has just closed its doors, sooooo, (OH MY GAWD!!!) I may have to go there yet again if only to protect my investment! Since you guys probably didn't know, I've been doing tooling design and manufacture for over 35 years.

I've given this "Scrapjack" thing _(don't blame me for that one, it's a Bona-Fide U.S. Navy nick-name!) _some thought and considering the wall thickness of this kit, if it is going to be used for R/C it really should be shot in *glass-filled, Polycarbonate*. At least that way, if you hit the side of a pool with it at speed, there's just some paint damage, to the pool that is. What about _*(poly)styrene??? *_Well, if that you insist on using it, perhaps one should instead be doing a model of Thresher. Disadvantage of glass-filled, Polycarbonate is high material cost and extreme wear on the screw, barrel and nozzle of the press. By the way you all know "Polycarbonate" by it's brand name: *"LEXAN."* I'd image this thing can't be shot on anything under a 500 Ton press. Those are expensive components to replace on a machine that size and on up. But an extra premium on an R/C devoted Glass/Polycarb version might be worth considering. Limited run, the whole bit.

Beryllium was outlawed in toolmaking by Pres. Bill Clinton (its RADIOACTIVE and cause Berylliosis) yet it's still used for molds in Korea. The "Accurate" Model Company's Allison engined P51 Mustang series was done in all E.D.M.'ed Beryllium tooling. At least there's no breathable dust generated that way. Main advantage is in heat exchange so you may not even need to run water for cooling. That's helpful in primitive places (ahem) where cooling towers aren't all the rage, or even exist.

I remember about 25 years ago, a guy in the shop which I was renting time, had to machine an 1.5" x 12" bar of that stuff and it had fluorescent orange warning labels over it warning about needed respiratory protection. We all ended up breathing the dust regardless. Cough. 

"Jeweler's Copper" still has between 10% and 15% Beryllium alloyed in it, yet still is used as it is one of the best pattern making casting materials.

Long way round to getting to why I've said what I've said, but there you go. ---Paul


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

John P said:


> They _completely _own the market on nuclear subs, except for all the OTHER companies that make models of nuclear subs.
> 
> A week later: Yeah, but, they own the market on nuclear sub kits THAT BIG.
> 
> :lol:


Check my original post:

"...This 1/72 kit establishes a whole new market segment untouched by anybody else. Revell broke ground in this area with a couple of 1/72 WWII boats but Moebius owns the nuke market."

I very specifically said 1/72 scale in my post (#13 on page 1 of this thread).

What have I said differently now?


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

I guess for remote control use,someone could always reinforce the interior of this styrene sub with either fiberglass with resin,or some stronger material on the market,if it exist.Any suggestions.These tips could be useful for futur RC modified buildups of this sub.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

xsavoie said:


> I guess for remote control use,someone could always reinforce the interior of this styrene sub with either fiberglass with resin,or some stronger material on the market,if it exist.Any suggestions.These tips could be useful for futur RC modified buildups of this sub.


There is no need to reinforce the hull.

The hull is not a pressure vessel.

98% of modern RC sub models have "free flooding" hulls so the hull that you see is not under pressure. There is water inside the boat and outside the boat. The pressure on the visible hull is equalized.

The pressure vessel is a separate water-tight box or series of water-tight boxes inside of the kit hull. This is why David Merriman makes what he calls the "WTC" which stands for Water Tight Cylinder. It is a pressure vessel which is made from Lexan. Being a polycarbonate cylinder, it's a great pressure vessel and should withstand anything thrown at it.

You can also make your own interior pressure vessels. I helped a guy build some fiberglass boxes a few years ago. I know DeBoer hulls sells fiberglass water-tight boxes with Lexan lids that bolt on for their model subs.

When installed inside the hull of a model, water will flow inside the hull but NOT into the watertight boxes. This puts the interior boxes under pressure but equalizes pressure on the visible kit hull. 

So you can use the kit hull as is (with, of course, necessary modifications to access the interior boxes).


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I really want to see a Nautilus too...unfortunately I can't see Moebius doing one at this scale and making a 53" injection molded kit. But who knows, if the goal is to have a kit that doubles as an R/C model, maybe that's conceivable. That's certainly eating up a lot of my garage space though! At least subs are long and lean...


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

zike said:


> There is no need to reinforce the hull.
> 
> The hull is not a pressure vessel.
> 
> ...



WHO are you???


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Super 7 said:


> WHO are you???


My identity must remain a closely guarded secret .

I will tell you that I have no commercial interest or ties to anybody in the industry. I don't manufacture or sell anything related to radio controlled models.

However, I do have a lengthy connection to the hobby stretching back to the late 1970's when a friend of mine got hold of 1/32 scale Type VII made by (now defunct) 32nd Parallel and he required assistance. Since then I have built a number of RC subs and lost a couple. I've had to swim for one and had to dive off a rubber raft to find another. I've learned a few expensive lessons about what makes a model sub sink. I'm also happy to say that those lessons took hold because I haven't left one on the bottom for fifteen years. My last casualty was a Scale Shipyard 1/48 Type iX which went around 1996 but it was recovered (with help from other modelers).

But going back to my comment about the interior pressure hull, you can see what I mean if you look at the picture of David Merrimans WTC inside the hull of the Skipjack on the first page of this thread. If I remember Daves design correctly, the forward part of his WTC incoporates the ballast tank. There will likley be a gell cell battery placed in the forward portion of the hull to provide power (placed forward for balance purposes). But the rest of the interior will completely flood with water. The battery and the WTC are full submerged in water.

The Skipjack hull will have holes cut in it to allow it to flood rapidly. Likely (although I do not know this for a fact) flooding holes will be cut in the bottom of the hull in the same position that these holes would exist on the real boat. Naturally, vent holes will be cut in the upper hull to allow air to escape.

The kit hull will provide a hydrodynamic shape and will hold the working parts in place. But, in a way, the REAL submarine is the WTC.


----------



## Super 7 (Aug 14, 2004)

*Conspiracy theorists unite!*

WHY must your identity remain secret, hiding something are you??? 

PLEASE realize, I am not out to hurt anyone here, I hope Moebius sells boatloads (oooooh sorry!) of these, but styrene just doesn't cut it on objects of this size with that much internal weight. What is the wall thickness on this beast? I forgot to be a pain over that too.....

Anyway, styrene is fine for an empty display model, but handling while taking it in and out of water will stress that outer hull, with the weight of those innards, batteries included, especially when filled with water and before draining starts, if you see what I'm saying. That 5"+ diameter means a lot of water will be in there at 8 pounds per gallon. In my opinion, those drain holes molded in or added later is where the cracking would likely start. 

Same with any collision. High Impact styrene is marginally better in spite of it's name. ABS really is the answer here. No extra wear on the tooling and only a bit more expensive of a material.

Some 20 years ago I well remember Mike Dory's Skipjack, I believe a Dennis DeBoer Hull from Springfield S.D. (My Dad and I visited Dennis and his family there back in 1992.) I think it was the same size as this one and being Polyester/glass, it used to warp in sunlight and then straighten when placed in the cool water. Polyester resin has a lot of styrene monomer in it. That warping did cause some minor problems as I recall. The glass itself took up all the longitudinal as well as torsional loads during handling though. 

Eventually, I convinced Dennis to switch to epoxy/glass for all of his fine models. Man could his wife cook! His restored to showroom or better (by himself no less) Corvette was incredible too!


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

Super 7 said:


> ... but styrene just doesn't cut it on objects of this size with that much internal weight.
> 
> ... That 5"+ diameter means a lot of water will be in there at 8 pounds per gallon. In my opinion, those drain holes molded in or added later is where the cracking would likely start.
> 
> Some 20 years ago I well remember Mike Dory's Skipjack, I believe a Dennis DeBoer Hull from Springfield S.D. (My Dad and I visited Dennis and his family there back in 1992.) I think it was the same size as this one and being Polyester/glass,


Au contraire mon frere (hey, I'm Canadian. I guess I can speak French).

in fact, the total submerged displacement of a 1/72 Skiipjack is only 18.75 lbs!

Yeah, 18.75lbs submerged displacement. But that's how much it will displace. The actual weight will be significantly less.

The fact that the WEIGHT of the submarine is less than the DISPLACEMENT is related to the free-flooding design. The displacement is determined by the volume of water required to fill the shape of the submerged hull. And 18.75 lbs of water will fill the volume of a 1/72 Skipjack.

But remember, in a free-flooding design, a significant amount of that 18.75lbs is water that simply floods into the hull as it settles into the water. In other words, the submarine is not supporting that water weight...it is merely being filled by it. Imagine dropping a 5 gallon drum into a pond. That drum would fill with 40 lbs of water. But the drum would not be supporting the water because there would be equal water pressure from all sides. It would put no stress on the drum.

I would estimate the actual weight of a 1/72 scale free-flooding Skipjack at approximately 8lb to 9lbs. That's just an estimate based on the approximate volume of the water-tight boxes and battery that I beleive will be needed. It might weigh only 7lbs. It might weigh 10lbs. I think 8lbs. to 9lbs. is a reasonable estimate.

So you take your 9 lb. model down to the pond and place it in the water. It will free flood with about 7.5lbs of water (we know a 1/72 scale Skipjack has a SURFACED displacement of 16.48lbs.) Pump another 2.5 lbs. of water into the ballast tank and she submerges!

And it's supercritical to remember that the outer hull (ie, the model kit) bears no water pressure.

The maximum load born by the hull is the approximately 9 lbs. of it's total dry weight.

A model 1/72 sub model is easily capable of bearing that weight if you use common sense. Just cradle the hull in your hands and it will be perfectly OK. Just don't do something stupid like pick it up by the fairwater planes .



The Skipjack made by DeBoer is 1/48. I've got one. Yep, the old polyester job and keep it in the shade because it really does warp in the sunlight.

How much does a 1/48 scale Skipjack displace? It has a submerged displacement of 63.3lbs!

I know what you're thinking. "Hey, jerkwater, that doesn't make any sense". A 1/48 scale model is only a bit bigger than a 1/72 model. You can't tell me that the same hull that displaces 18.75lb in 1/72 scale displaces 63.3 lbs in 1/48 scale!!

Well, that's what I'm telling you. Displacement is a function of volume and isn't calculated like a linear measurement.

To calculate displacement, you must take the displacement of the real submarine and divide it by the cube of the denominator of the scale.

Here we go:

REAL SKIPJACK. Submerged displacement 3500 tons. That's 7,000,000lbs.

In 1/72 scale: 72 cubed is 373,248. 7,000,000/373,248= 18.75lbs.

In 1/48 scale: 48 cubed is 110,592. 7,000.000/110592= 63.3lbs.

So, as you can see, we can't use the DeBoer boat to estimate loads on the Moebius boat.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

The Skipjack model was designed by David merriman, an accomplished career model submarineer. I have no doubt in my mind that David knows what he is doing. Frank would not have placed his trust in him if he didn't. I'm looking forward to this kit, in my case it is for static display. But I may purchase another to R/C.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Like I said, I'm _reasonably _sure it's intended as a model kit first, with the possibility of R/Cing for those few who want to. I wager they'll sell more for display than for sailing.

Of course, I may be wrong.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm just crossing my fingers that somebody wins this vitally important argument!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

jbond said:


> I'm just crossing my fingers that somebody wins this vitally important argument!


This is a pointless debate, of which there are no winners. Who gives a hoot?
bring on the kit!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I know I'M on pins and needles! :freak:


----------



## modelnut (Apr 19, 2000)

I have a kit on pre-order. And I have just ordered the upgrade kit from Caswell so that one day I may take this kit RC. 

This is one of my Grail kits! The other would be a Type XXI u-boat in 72 scale. :thumbsup:

- Leelan


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

zike said:


> There is no need to reinforce the hull.
> The hull is not a pressure vessel.


I think the other poster was speaking of failure due to impact, not pressure?


----------



## g_xii (Mar 20, 2002)

Well, that would be referring to your piloting abilities and not really towards the manufacturer's design limitations and such.

If you crash it, it's YOUR fault! Don't you agree?

--Henry


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Hee. If I ever tried to pilot a model sub, I'd wrap the damn thing in six inches of bubble wrap first!

But then it would probably be too buoyant ...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Was it here that someone told a story about doing an emergency blow in the middle of a bunch of swimming cub scouts, and scaring the crap out of them?


----------

