A fighting chance for submarines

Hi Mikey,

I am a very permissive guy. I'd rather compromise on scale in order to get a cool new boat on the water, than be a stickler and ban every boat that isn't a museum piece. As far as I'm concerned, the pull-down-motor idea is great. It uses proven, reliable technology that we are familiar with (ESC, propshaft and prop) instead of complex/unfamiliar pneumatic or mechanical diving systems. To me, that's a huge plus. Further, All the un-scale stuff is below the water, where it cannot be seen on the water. I'd much rather have a boat that's accurate above the water and botched below, than the other way around.

That said, have you considered a dynamic diver? That's what every single diving Big Gun submarine has used, and those submarines are a whole lot slower than Fast Gun subs. With your allowed speeds, you'd have a much easier time getting your ship to dive.

 

Carl, I have never seen a dynamic diver, so my only experience in with my own boat, HMCS Windsor. It bleeds speed when it turns. My Scharnhorst does too, but not to the same extent. Don't the dynamic divers tend to come towards the surface while the model is turning, or worse evading where there are several turns in sequence?
How would a pull down motor work? Does the prop stick out of the bottom? Could a bow thruster system work instead. They are contained and are available online. With channelled I/O ports located just above the waterline or casing area and pointing at a 45 ish degree angle, it would look similar to real boats when the main vents are opened and look cool too.
J

 

I have only seen one sub ever in the combat that actually went under water. It had some sort of ballast tank system. It was really cool.
I am not sure what the best method would be. But am just trying to keep an open mind, as to just what type of system to use.
It sounds like the pull-down motor system would be similar to a bow-thruster. Located in the hull itself. But pointing upand down, instead of to the sides.
I may start out trying the dynamic diver type, and if I can't get it to work, then consider installing other mechanical stuff to make it work.
Mikey

 

I think an exposed pull down prop is something else to get tangled in weeds and keep the sub underwater. I've seen very small toy subs that dive well with a pull down prop but with a 33" long model I think there could be serious problems with trim unless there was more than one motor. Then you lose more internal space, which is very limited even in the new I-400 hull.
Static diving is useful, especially in a game like IRCWCC Campaign Lite where the sub can act as a base defence ship, surfacing to fire its spurt gun at stationary battleships fshooting at the magnetic targets then submerging and returning to shore to reload ammo.
Jay and I are going to try ballast tanks at the bow and stern and make them penetrable. Holing either one could stand the sub on end and possibly sink it completely. The rest of the lower hull will be solid but the upper hull will be penetrable. Years ago I proposed giving higher points for hits on subs with mostly impenetrable lower hulls: 25 pts. for upper hull hits and 100 pts. for holing a ballast tank or free flooding penetrable area.
Bob

 

Our plan is to start out trying to build it as a dynamic diver.
Then perhaps try installing some sort of ballast tank, down the road.
It will certainly be a challenge. But we are looking forward to it.
Mikey

 

Vance says that he doesn't care which sub we decide to build. He just wants a sub.
So that being said..
Which subs should we consider as a reasonable first attemp?
I am thinking that a sub that is larger than most others would be easier to build.
Although I also think that a simple hull shape will also help.

I like the French cruiser-submarine Surcouf the most.
It is one of the largest subs there is. But it also has a rather complex hull shape.

The Japanese I-400 is also huge, and seems to have a realtively simple hull shape.
Almost like a destroyer hull.

Someone else also mentioned a large U.S. boat.
Nautilus, or something like that.

Thoughts??
Mikey

 

I-400 is the biggest submarine out there. Only problem is there's not much room for accessing steering gear, etc. It gets VERY tight in the stern. Surcouf is pretty good, too. I believe it is more roomy in the stern, but it's been a while since I saw the Surcouf in my club. It was an old wooden hull :0 There was one American sub that was also really big, and had a wide, flat stern. That one was particularly interesting because of how easy it would be to fit in sturdy, standard steering gear. I don't remember which one it was, though.

 

It's the V-4 (AKA Argonaut, AKA SS-166) with the wide stern. At 381' x 34' she's the biggest American sub I've been able to find.

 

Carl, I-400's rudder will be in the stern but the servo will be midships ish. Bob was able to make Hood turn with this type of deal so the sub should turn easily with it.
The I-400 had half again the displacement of Surcouf and has 33% more beam. Steve Hill has a Surcouf hull. I will try to get a pic side by side with our I-400.
J

 

The V-4 is bigger than a flush deck destroyer!

 

All
After talking up the subs with some of the locals last weekend. I have come to a couple conclusions on my build.
First off. I have never taken on a submarine build. Mainly because I wasn't sure that I could get the diving and cannon systems in a boat that small,
and still make it work.
But, I have build a few destroyers in the past.
So I have decided that our submarine will not be a diver. At least, not at first.
We are going to build a surface runner. Building it as a surface runner will allow us to put all of the knowledge that we have gained through
building destroyers into this slightly smaller boat. And after getting it on the water, and having some fun running it, we will look into trying
to figure out how we want to go about making it dive.
As it will be a 1.5 unit ship (boat). Sorry! We will install a half-unit bilge-pump, and a one unit spurt-cannon.
If we can make everything work, then we could always change the spurt-cannon out for a single-shot cannon.

One thing about utilizing a spurt-cannon, is that we may opt to not have a tank, and regultor in the boat. But just an accumulator.

We also plan to not have the access to the hull at the deck. But instead have the access hatch at the bottom of the hull. Simply turn the boat
upside-down on a cradle, and pull the cover off.
It seems that being able to get a good deck-seal is questionable. So if the hatch is in the bottom, then perhaps the air inside will help keep the
water out.
Thoughts?
Mikey

 

With all of the sub discussion going on and after chatting with Mikey recently, I decided to pull out the Surcouf hull and take a look at it. I picked up the hull from Bob Pottle and it is very well done. It is thick and sturdy and came with a fiberglass subdeck. The hull seperates just below where the boat sides angle in from the hull sides, right about where the "waterline: would be on the full size hull. Bob also included a fiberglass hanger/gun turret. Someone had previously installed the twin prop shafts, rudder (nicely made at that!), and marked out the penetrable windows.

Deciding to take a shot at completing the Surcouf, I started work last night. The plan is to make the ship a static diver using ideas from the non-combat sub modelers out on the internet. If static diving is not doable, then it'll be a dynamic diver. The plan is to arm it with a single cannon. We'll see how things turn out.

 

Mike
Surcouf
The (cruiser) submarine.
Vive le France!
Mikey

 

Mikey, Bob Pottle compartmentalized and water proofed the internal compartments in his I-400.
If we can get pics from the fellow in Ontario you can see how he did it. We are likely going to be doing the same thing in the new one.
Haven't been able to contact Steve Hill, (he is very busy with his new business) but I will and get pics of the two hulls side by side.
J

 

You can see pictures of the I400 Bryan bought from Bob here: http://ontarioattackforce.multiply.com/photos/album/69/New_Additions_to_the_Western_Fleet_of_the_OAF
--Chase

 

Beautiful, thanks Chase.
I knew I had seen them online.
We are going to be doing something similar in the new I-400.
J

 

Very good info being passed around here.
Well done everyone!
The future looks promising.
Mikey